Re: removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Bruce Momjian
Тема Re: removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE
Дата
Msg-id 20130531180536.GD1728@momjian.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Ответы Re: removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 11:00:19AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
> 
> > Roberts statement was:
> > 
> >> Loss or corruption of a single visibility map page means possible loss
> >> of half a gigabyte of data.
> 
> I fail to be alarmed at this; currently losing a single page of the clog
> causes just as widespread corruption (worse, actually, since it's not
> confined to one table).  It does point to the eventual need to checksum
> these things, though.
> 
> > Certainly unidentified corruption of a visibility map page could easily
> > cause incorrect results.  So, technically, _adding_ bits would cause
> > corruption.
> 
> Yes, that's already true.  I'm pointing out that if we depend on the
> vismap for all-frozen, then losing bits *also* causes corruption, so
> that's something we need to test for.  Right now, there is no possible
> corruption from losing bits; we simply end up scannning more pages than
> we have to.

Right, and it is hard to see that losing and adding are somehow
more/less likely, so it seems we already realy on the visibility map
being correct.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Josh Berkus
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: removing PD_ALL_VISIBLE
Следующее
От: Joe Conway
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: detecting binary backup in progress