Re: Why do we have a WAL record for CLOG page extension?
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why do we have a WAL record for CLOG page extension? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1149628090.2566.39.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why do we have a WAL record for CLOG page extension? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 10:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Why do we have a WAL record for CLOG page extension? > > Think of it as being a substitute for a full-page image, or perhaps the > init-bit in heap-insert records is the closest analogy. Your patch is > unworkable because it provides no means for recovering from > corrupt-on-disk clog pages. The current system only helps recover from corrupt-on-disk pages that have been newly written since last checkpoint (or maybe two checkpoints ago). If the pages were initialised before that then we've simply lost that data altogether anyhow. Seems like we're writing WAL for a fairly rare situation, yet we still have some big issues. Should we hold two copies of the clog for robustness? That way we can just switch to the second copy if we have problems. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: