On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 04:18:01 AM Robert Haas wrote: > >> Maybe what we should do is - if this is an end-of-recovery checkpoint > >> - *assert* that the BM_PERMANENT bit is set on every buffer we find. > >> That would provide a useful cross-check that we don't have a bug > >> similar to the one Jeff already fixed in any other code path. > > > > I haven't looked into the details, but can't a new unlogged relation be > > created since the last checkpoint and thus have pages in s_b? > > Data changes to unlogged relations are not WAL-logged, so there's no > reason for recovery to ever read them. Even if such a reason existed, > there wouldn't be anything to read, because the backing files are > unlinked before WAL replay begins. Back then I thought that resetting the relation by copying the init fork might use the buffer cache. It doesn't atm...
Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
