Heikki, do you have any interest in completing your file checking patch
for inclusion in 8.1 by adding tablespace information and other fixes as
requested by Tom below? The current patch version is at:
ftp://candle.pha.pa.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches
called checkfiles*.
Anyone else
No, not for now. Maybe for 8.2. And maybe as a contrib tool at first after
all.
- Heikki
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Heikki, do you have any interest in completing your file checking patch
for inclusion in 8.1 by adding tablespace information and other fixes as
requested by
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The current code is nice and localized and doesn't add any burden on our
existing code, which is already complicated enough. I think we either
fix checkfiles.c, or we remove it and
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
While your original patch is buggy, it's at least fixable and has
localized, limited impact. I don't think these schemes are safe
at all --- they put a great deal more weight on the semantics of
the filesystem than I care to do.
I'm going to try this some more,
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
While your original patch is buggy, it's at least fixable and has
localized, limited impact. I don't think these schemes are safe
at all --- they put a great deal more weight on the semantics of
the filesystem than I care to
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
While your original patch is buggy, it's at least fixable and has
localized, limited impact. I don't think these schemes are safe
at all --- they put a great deal more weight on the semantics of
the filesystem
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The current code is nice and localized and doesn't add any burden on our
existing code, which is already complicated enough. I think we either
fix checkfiles.c, or we remove it and decide it isn't worth checking for
unrefrenced files.
Let's pull the patch
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The current code is nice and localized and doesn't add any burden on our
existing code, which is already complicated enough. I think we either
fix checkfiles.c, or we remove it and decide it isn't worth checking for
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The current code is nice and localized and doesn't add any burden on our
existing code, which is already complicated enough. I think we either
fix checkfiles.c, or we remove it and decide it isn't worth
On Sat, 7 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe we should take a different approach to the problem:
1. Create new file with an extension to mark that it's not
yet committed (eg. 1234.notcommitted)
This is pushing the problem into the wrong place, viz the
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Consider the variant with extra marker files. In that case, backend B
doesn't have to know about the .notcommitted status to flush the buffers.
[ shrug ] It's still broken, and the reason is that there's no
equivalent of fsync for directory
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Consider the variant with extra marker files. In that case, backend B
doesn't have to know about the .notcommitted status to flush the buffers.
[ shrug ] It's still broken, and the reason is that there's no
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[ shrug ] It's still broken, and the reason is that there's no
equivalent of fsync for directory operations. Consider
Traditionally that's because directory operations were always
synchronous, and hence didn't need to
Maybe we should take a different approach to the problem:
1. Create new file with an extension to mark that it's not
yet committed (eg. 1234.notcommitted)
2. ...
3. Take CheckpointStartLock
4. Write commit record to WAL, with list of created files.
5. rename created file (1234.notcommitted -
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Maybe we should take a different approach to the problem:
1. Create new file with an extension to mark that it's not
yet committed (eg. 1234.notcommitted)
This is pushing the problem into the wrong place, viz the lowest-level
file access
15 matches
Mail list logo
