On 11/14/2014 10:17 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10/30/2014 04:12 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Hi,
I've just once more looked at the WAL stream ans was briefly confused
about all the XLOG_FPI records. Since 54685338e3
log_newpage/log_newpage_buffer and XLogSaveBufferForHint() use the same
WAL record. I personally find that a bad idea because they're used in
quite different situations.
Can we use different IDs again?
Yeah, we should do something about that. I'll fix that after the WAL
format changes stuff.
Ok, I added a new XLOG_FPI_FOR_HINT record type for this. It's the same
as XLOG_FPI, but used in XLogSaveBufferForHint() so that the cases can
be distinguished.
Looking at the callers of log_newpage, many of them could easily be
replaced with rmgr-specific record types, if we don't want to club them
all together as XLOG_FPI records. Another thought is to add a reason
code to the XLOG_FPI record type. But there aren't that many callers of
log_newpage ATM, and most of them are very low volume, like the
buildempty AM methods to generate the init fork for unlogged indexes, so
it's not very urgent.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
