Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
Date: 2022-03-30 11:47:41
Message-ID: CAFiTN-uV_u1LgBN_CAiGyfgPXp+bfBUVqG5mZ24Nqc8e_Yb0HQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 9:25 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 3:08 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > smgrcreate() as we would for most WAL records or whether it should be
> > adopting the new system introduced by
> > 49d9cfc68bf4e0d32a948fe72d5a0ef7f464944e. I wrote about this concern
> > over here:
> >
> > http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYcUPL+WOJL2ZzhH=zmrhj0iOQ=iCFM0SuYqBbqZEamEg@mail.gmail.com
> >
> > But apart from that question your adaptations here look reasonable to me.
>
> That commit having been reverted, I committed v6 instead. Let's see
> what breaks...
>

There was a duplicate error check for the invalid createdb strategy
option in the test case, although it would not create any issue but it
is duplicate so I have fixed it in the attached patch.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
remove_duplicate_error_check.patch text/x-patch 588 bytes

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker 2022-03-30 12:00:17 Re: multithreaded zstd backup compression for client and server
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2022-03-30 11:43:54 Re: SSL/TLS instead of SSL in docs