On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> So I'm back to proposing that we just apply FPI-free WAL records
>> unconditionally, without regard to the LSN. This could potentially
>> corrupt the page, of course.
>
> Yes. So you're still assuming that there will be a
Robert Haas writes:
> So I'm back to proposing that we just apply FPI-free WAL records
> unconditionally, without regard to the LSN. This could potentially
> corrupt the page, of course.
Yes. So you're still assuming that there will be a later FPI-containing
WAL record to fix up the mess you cr
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> What happens if we (a) keep the current rule after reaching
>> consistency and (b) apply any such updates *unconditionally* - that
>> is, without reference to the LSN - prior to reaching
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 3. Page LSN > WAL location: do NOT apply field update or change LSN.
>
I don't think this works. There could be multiple writes to a page for
different records before the crash occurs. The LSN could be far in the
future and yet still have a torn
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> What happens if we (a) keep the current rule after reaching
> consistency and (b) apply any such updates *unconditionally* - that
> is, without reference to the LSN - prior to reaching consistency?
> Under that rule, if we encounter an FPI befo
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Any substantive comments, besides the obvious "this is not 9.1 material"?
>
> Now that I've absorbed a bit more caffeine, let's see if I can think
> straight this time.
>
> General principle you want to assert: any WAL entr
Robert Haas writes:
> Any substantive comments, besides the obvious "this is not 9.1 material"?
Now that I've absorbed a bit more caffeine, let's see if I can think
straight this time.
General principle you want to assert: any WAL entry that merely results
in setting a deterministic field to a d
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Say what? A heap deletion compacts the page --- it will certainly fail
>>> badly on torn-page.
>
>> What do you mean by "compacts the page"? I would interpret that to
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Say what? A heap deletion compacts the page --- it will certainly fail
>> badly on torn-page.
> What do you mean by "compacts the page"? I would interpret that to
> mean "reclaims the space formerly used by the tuple be
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I was thinking about full-page writes again tonight. I'm still
>> wondering about the feasibility of getting rid of full-page writes for
>> certain operations. We can do this, I think, in any case where we can
>> convinc
Robert Haas writes:
> I was thinking about full-page writes again tonight. I'm still
> wondering about the feasibility of getting rid of full-page writes for
> certain operations. We can do this, I think, in any case where we can
> convince ourselves that if the original operation, or a redo of
I was thinking about full-page writes again tonight. I'm still
wondering about the feasibility of getting rid of full-page writes for
certain operations. We can do this, I think, in any case where we can
convince ourselves that if the original operation, or a redo of the
original operation, leave
12 matches
Mail list logo
