On 30.11.2010 18:10, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
Yeah, I'm not terribly excited about any of these schemes. The "intent"
record seems like the simplest one, but even that is quite different
from the traditional WAL-logging we do that it makes me slightly nervous.
I'm not convinced it works at all. Consider write intent record,
checkpoint, set bit, crash before completing vacuum. There will be
no second intent record at which you could clean up if things are
inconsistent.
That's why you need to check the RedoRecPtr when you set the bit. If it
has changed, ie. a checkpoint has happened, the set bit step will write
a new intent record.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
