On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Another pin-point is: given a certain page, how do we identify of >>> which type it is? One possibility would be again to extend the AM >>> handler with some kind of is_self function with a prototype like that: >>> bool handler->is_self(Page); >>> If the page is of the type of the handler, this returns true, and >>> false otherwise. Still here performance would suck. >>> >>> At the end, what we want is a clean interface, and more thoughts into it. >> >> I think that it makes sense to filter based on the resource manager >> ID >> > > +1.
Yes actually that's better. That's simple enough and removes any need to looking at pd_special. > I think the patch currently addresses only a subset of resource > manager id's (mainly Heap and Index resource manager id's). Do we > want to handle the complete resource manager list as defined in > rmgrlist.h? Not all of them generate FPWs. I don't think it matters much. > Another thing that needs some thoughts is the UI of this patch, > currently it is using integer mask which might not be best way, but > again as it is intended to be mainly used for tests, it might be okay. What we'd want to have is a way to visualize easily differences of pages. Any other ideas than MASK_MARKER would be welcome of course. > Do we want to enable some tests in the regression suite by using this option? We could get out a recovery test that sets up a standby/master and runs the tests of src/test/regress with pg_regress with this parameter enabled. + * bufmask.c + * Routines for buffer masking, used to ensure that buffers used for + * comparison across nodes are in a consistent state. + * + * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2014, PostgreSQL Global Development Group + * Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California Copyright notices need to be updated. (It's already been 2 years!!) Also, what's the use case of allowing only a certain set of rmgrs to be checked. Wouldn't a simple on/off switch be simpler? As presented, wal_consistency_mask is also going to be very quite confusing for users. You should not need to apply some maths to set up this parameter, a list of rmgr names may be more adapted if this level of tuning is needed, still it seems to me that we don't need this much. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
