On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Check for INIT_FORKNUM appears both accompanied and not > accompanied by check for RELPER.._UNLOGGED, so I'm not sure which > is the convention here.
Checking only for INIT_FORKNUM seems logical to me. Also checking for RELPERSISTENCE_UNLOGGED just makes the code longer to no benefit. I guess Amit copied the test from ATExecSetTablespace, which does it as he did, but it seems unnecessarily long-winded. > The difference of the two is an init fork of TEMP > relations. However I believe that init fork is by definition a > part of an unlogged relation, it seems to me that it ought not to > be wal-logged if we had it. From this viewpoint, the middle line > makes sense. Actually, the init fork of an unlogged relation *must* be WAL-logged. All other forks are removed on a crash (and the main fork is copied anew from the init fork). But the init fork itself must survive - therefore it, and only it, must be WAL-logged and thus durable. > By the way the comment of the function ReadBufferWithoutRelcache > has the following sentense. > > | * NB: At present, this function may only be used on permanent relations, > which > | * is OK, because we only use it during XLOG replay. If in the future we > | * want to use it on temporary or unlogged relations, we could pass > additional > | * parameters. > > and does > > | return ReadBuffer_common(smgr, RELPERSISTENCE_PERMANENT, forkNum, blockNum, > mode, strategy, > &hit); > > This surely works since BufferAlloc recognizes INIT_FORK. But > some adjustment may be needed around here. Yeah, it should probably mention that the init fork of an unlogged relation is also OK. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers