Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:36:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I thought from the
>> beginning that the slru layer underneath pg_clog was bad from the point
>> of view of obfuscating the code, because it forced an awkward division
>> of labor between clog.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 01:36:39PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:24:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> It may be that we do not care because pg_subtrans doesn't have to be
> >> valid after a crash, but I haven't seen any proof of th
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:24:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It may be that we do not care because pg_subtrans doesn't have to be
>> valid after a crash, but I haven't seen any proof of that theory.
> The whole point of the subtrans info is to be availa
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:24:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It may be that we do not care because pg_subtrans doesn't have to be
> valid after a crash, but I haven't seen any proof of that theory.
Let's suppose we crash between creating a child transaction and marking
it as done. What we have to
Added to open items:
* determine proper crash recovery/logging for pg_subtrans
---
Alvaro Herrera Munoz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:24:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > My discovery last night of a WAL synchr
My discovery last night of a WAL synchronization error in pg_clog led me
to take a look at pg_subtrans too. I soon realized that in fact we are
not WAL-logging pg_subtrans updates at all: subtransaction start sets up
a pg_subtrans entry but makes no WAL entry for this action.
Seems like this is a
On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 12:24:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> My discovery last night of a WAL synchronization error in pg_clog led me
> to take a look at pg_subtrans too. I soon realized that in fact we are
> not WAL-logging pg_subtrans updates at all: subtransaction start sets up
> a pg_subtrans e
Alvaro Herrera Munoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... I'll be back on monday 16.
Okay. It's certainly not something we must fix this week.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archi
