On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 2:12 PM Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
> I got the same doubt when i looked into some of the UNDO patches
> where it tries to modify the core code to add UNDO specific WAL types.
> Different AM's may need different set of operations to be WAL logged,
> so it may be better for the AM's to register their own types?
In the current undo proposal, the undo subsystem itself needs an rmgr
ID for WAL-logging of some low level undo log management records (ie
its own record types), but then any undo-aware AM would also need to
have its own rmgr ID for its own universe of WAL records (its own
types, meaningful to it alone), and that same rmgr ID is used also for
its undo records (which themselves have specific types). That is, in
rmgrlist.h, an undo-aware AM would register not only its redo function
(called for each WAL record in recovery) but also its undo function
(called when transaction roll back, if your transaction generated any
undo records). Which raises the question of how a hypothetical
undo-aware AM could deal with undo records if it's using generic WAL
records. I haven't thought about that. A couple of ideas we've
bounced around to allow extensions to work with specific WAL records:
(1) a community-wide registry of rmgr IDs (basically, just allocate
the IDs for all known extensions in a header in the tree, like IANA),
or (2) a per-cluster registry scheme where an extension, identified by
its name, would be permanently allocated an rmgr number and library +
callback functions for the lifetime of that cluster. Or something
like that.
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com