| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |
| Date: | 2019-07-19 13:07:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZvW458WqH+dqmbnLdgg5EyH5g-p4+JZDOvxW96Kq6nFw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:54 AM Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> + * We just want to mask the cid in the undo record header. So
> + * only if the partial record in the current page include the undo
> + * record header then we need to mask the cid bytes in this page.
> + * Otherwise, directly jump to the next record.
> Here, I think you mean : "So only if the partial record in the current
> page includes the *cid* bytes", rather than "includes the undo record
> header"
> May be we can say :
> We just want to mask the cid. So do the partial record masking only if
> the current page includes the cid bytes from the partial record
> header.
Hmm, but why is it correct to mask the CID at all? Shouldn't that match?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Palmiotto | 2019-07-19 13:37:45 | Re: sepgsql seems rather thoroughly broken on Fedora 30 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-07-19 13:05:12 | Re: POC: Cleaning up orphaned files using undo logs |