Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> BTW, I'd be a lot happier about assuming that bare RelFileNode contains >> no padding, because that's at least got all the fields the same type. >> So that brings us back to the question of why this code is supporting >> fsync requests for local relations in the first place. Couldn't we have >> it ignore those, and then only ship RelFileNode to the checkpointer?
> That's an awfully good point. I think that was just sloppy coding on > my part (cf commit debcec7dc31a992703911a9953e299c8d730c778). +1 for > changing it as you suggest. OK, so I think the current proposal is: 1. Document that RelFileNode must not contain padding. 2. Change the fsync forwarding code to ignore backend-local relations, and include only RelFileNode not RelFileNodeBackend in requests. 3. Zero the checkpointer requests array at shmem init time, so as to ensure consistency of any pad bytes elsewhere in the request structs. I will see about making this happen. Since the fsync queue compaction code got back-patched awhile ago, we need to back-patch the relevant parts of this too. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers