On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 12:53:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> writes: > > Okay, so probably we need to change WAL replay of TRUNCATE so that > > the index file is truncated to one containing only meta page instead of > > empty one. That is, the WAL replay of TRUNCATE would need to call > > index_build() after smgrtruncate() maybe. > > That seems completely unworkable. For one thing, index_build would expect > to be able to do catalog lookups, but we can't assume that the catalogs > are in a good state yet. > > I think the responsibility has to be on the WAL-writing end to emit WAL > instructions that lead to a correct on-disk state. Putting complex > behavior into the reading side is fundamentally misguided.
Am I missing something. ISTM that if the truncate record was simply not logged at all everything would work fine. The whole point is that the table was created in this transaction and so if it exists the table on disk must be the correct representation. The broken index is just one symptom. The heap also shouldn't be truncated at all. If you insert a row before commit then after replay the tuple should be there still. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <klep...@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does > not attach much importance to his own thoughts. -- Arthur Schopenhauer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
