Re: Why clearing the VM doesn't require registering vm buffer in wal record

From: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(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: 2026-06-27 10:41:25
Message-ID: EF2A8B6A-CAA8-4D31-8E6A-683B35DA189C@yandex-team.ru
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 27 Jun 2026, at 01:05, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Apparently these patches are based on an old commit, or you have some
> other local patches. Can you specify a commit to apply them to, and/or
> rebase?

v3 set applies cleanly on REL_18_STABLE. +1 on backpatching this. I've done some
mechanical checks on the 18 variant: the new 012_vm_consistency test is green
(and goes red without the fix), and minor-version WAL compatibility holds:
WAL replays both ways between patched and unpatched 18.4 (patched replays
old-format records via the fallback path; unpatched harmlessly ignores the added
VM block refs).

Did I get it right that we will not have this

+ * Backwards compatibility path. Previously, the VM buffers were

on v19?

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuya Kawata 2026-06-27 10:55:53 Re: Add per-backend lock statistics
Previous Message ZizhuanLiu X-MAN 2026-06-27 10:33:04 Re: Return value of XLogInsertRecord() for XLOG_SWITCH record