From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Subject: | Re: Lowering the default wal_blocksize to 4K |
Date: | 2023-10-12 13:36:19 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaDtSxQuofrawMj1LnVxhZ3d1E=U8M3x9=f0zsnzJ-uCw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 4:28 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> That leaves only the segments where a record starts exactly on the
> first usable byte of a segment, which is why I was trying to think of
> a way to cover that case too. I suggested we could notice and insert
> a new record at that place. But Andres suggests it would be too
> expensive and not worth worrying about.
Hmm. Even in that case, xl_prev has to match. It's not like it's the
wild west. Sure, it's not nearly as good of a cross-check, but it's
something. It seems to me that it's not worth worrying very much about
xlp_seg_size or xlp_blcksz changing undetected in that scenario - if
you're doing that kind of advanced magic, you need to be careful
enough to not mess it up, and if we still cross-check once per
checkpoint cycle that's pretty good. I do worry a bit about the sysid
changing under us, though. It's not that hard to get your WAL archives
mixed up, and it'd be nice to catch that right away.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nazir Bilal Yavuz | 2023-10-12 13:37:36 | Re: [RFC] Add jit deform_counter |
Previous Message | torikoshia | 2023-10-12 13:21:26 | Re: RFC: Logging plan of the running query |