| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ivan Kartyshov <i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] WIP: long transactions on hot standby feedback replica / proof of concept |
| Date: | 2018-09-02 20:46:49 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobmA9VJOKQO1UuKurX7TPjVxFkYNAZPd8F2OOQ1kZS30A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Alexander Korotkov
<a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> The aspect I'm more concerned here about is whether we miss ability
> for detecting some of IO errors, if we don't distinguish new pages
> from pages whose tuples were removed by vacuum.
My main concern is correctness. If we ever have valid-looking buffers
in shared_buffers after the corresponding data has been truncated away
on disk, we've got to make sure that nobody ever confuses one of them
with an actually-valid buffer. Reading over your algorithm, I can't
convince myself that you have that case nailed down tightly enough.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-09-02 22:24:04 | Re: typcache.c typos |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-09-02 20:41:51 | Re: Why hash OIDs? |