| From: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Date: | 2016-11-02 09:07:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAGz5QCJ=fmf+NtzTr+1VHv5Rsz-BG1z8AgcSXQu+G1tHFxd+cQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hm... Right. That was broken. And actually, while the record-level
> flag is useful so as you don't need to rely on checking
> wal_consistency when doing WAL redo, the block-level flag is useful to
> make a distinction between blocks that have to be replayed and the
> ones that are used only for consistency, and both types could be mixed
> in a record. Using it in bimg_info would be fine... Perhaps a better
> name for the flag would be something like BKPIMAGE_APPLY, to mean that
> the FPW needs to be applied at redo. Or BKPIMAGE_IGNORE, to bypass it
> when replaying it. IS_REQUIRED_FOR_REDO is quite confusing.
BKPIMAGE_APPLY seems reasonable.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2016-11-02 10:47:39 | Re: Declarative partitioning - another take |
| Previous Message | Gilles Darold | 2016-11-02 09:07:34 | Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function |