On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 09:55:45AM +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > Yeah, good catch. With this, it seems like we can not move this new > WAL Insert out of the Exclusive WAL insertion lock right? Because if > we want to set the LSN of this record as the checkpoint.redo then > there should not be any concurrent insertion until we expose the > XLogCtl->Insert.RedoRecPtr. Otherwise, we will miss the FPW for all > the record which has been inserted after the checkpoint.redo before > we acquired the exclusive WAL insertion lock.
Yes. > So maybe I need to restart from the first version of the patch but > instead of moving the insertion of the new record out of the exclusive > lock need to do some better refactoring so that XLogInsertRecord() > doesn't look ugly. Yes, I am not sure which interface would be less ugli-ish, but that's enough material for a refactoring patch of the WAL insert routines on top of the main patch that introduces the REDO record. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
