| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: Why clearing the VM doesn't require registering vm buffer in wal record |
| Date: | 2026-03-05 23:11:43 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob8zCVDmvQe5eCy5cCaDfRZN0sJdEHL9YBz2k9-pvL9_w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 5, 2026 at 3:38 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> If checksums are enabled, we are already emitting FPIs for the VM when
> *setting* bits in the VM (c.f. log_heap_visible()). I don't see why the story
> for clearing it should be different. And because there are so few VM pages
> compared to heap pages, I wouldn't expect there to be a meaningful amount of
> VM FPIs outside of very contrived workloads.
Yeah, that's how it seems to me, too, at least as of this moment.
Is there any indication in the code or comments that this was an
intentional omission because somebody thought we could get away
without doing it? Or is just a straight-up goof?
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2026-03-05 23:36:54 | Re: generating function default settings from pg_proc.dat |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-03-05 22:49:39 | Re: [BUG + PATCH] DSA pagemap out-of-bounds in make_new_segment odd-sized path |