Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Robert Haas
Тема Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
Дата
Msg-id CA+TgmoZE0jW0jbQxAtoJgJNwrR1hyx3x8pUjQr=ggenLxnPoEQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:03 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > * Insert log record, using delete or insert instead of update log
> > * when only one of the two buffers needs WAL-logging. If this were a
> > * HOT-update, redoing the WAL record would result in a broken
> > * hot-chain. However, that never happens because updates complete on
> > * a single page always use log_update.

It makes sense grammatically, but I'm not sure I believe that it's
sound technically.  Even though it's only used in the non-HOT case,
it's still important that the CTID, XMIN, and XMAX fields are set
correctly during both normal operation and recovery.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH v20] GSSAPI encryption support
Следующее
От: Noah Misch
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Weaker shmem interlock w/o postmaster.pid