Re: Idea for better handling of cntxDirty
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Idea for better handling of cntxDirty |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 10841.1037130594@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Idea for better handling of cntxDirty (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <VMIKHEEV@sectordata.com> writes: >> Wouldn't it work for cntxDirty to be set not by LockBuffer, but by >> XLogInsert for each buffer that is included in its argument list? > I thought to add separate call to mark context dirty but above > should work if all callers to XLogInsert always pass all > modified buffers - please check. AFAICT it is safe. There are some places (in sequences and btree) where not all the modified buffers are explicitly listed in XLogInsert's arguments, but redo of those types of WAL records will always reinit the affected pages anyway. So we don't need to worry about forcing checkpoint to write the pages early. In general I don't think this adds any fragility to the system. A WAL record that is not set up to restore all buffers modified by the logged operation would be broken by definition, no? regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: