| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Date: | 2019-04-04 14:52:59 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZE0jW0jbQxAtoJgJNwrR1hyx3x8pUjQr=ggenLxnPoEQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:03 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > * Insert log record, using delete or insert instead of update log
> > * when only one of the two buffers needs WAL-logging. If this were a
> > * HOT-update, redoing the WAL record would result in a broken
> > * hot-chain. However, that never happens because updates complete on
> > * a single page always use log_update.
It makes sense grammatically, but I'm not sure I believe that it's
sound technically. Even though it's only used in the non-HOT case,
it's still important that the CTID, XMIN, and XMAX fields are set
correctly during both normal operation and recovery.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2019-04-04 14:53:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Weaker shmem interlock w/o postmaster.pid |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-04-04 14:52:48 | Re: [PATCH v20] GSSAPI encryption support |