Re: XLOG_NO_TRAN and XLogRecord.xl_xid
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: XLOG_NO_TRAN and XLogRecord.xl_xid |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5712.1172160695@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: XLOG_NO_TRAN and XLogRecord.xl_xid (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes: > Florian G. Pflug wrote: >> * Note: xlog record is marked as outside transaction control, since we >> * want it to be redone whether the invoking transaction commits or not. > That comment is a bit misleading, I agree. We don't skip xlog entries, > they're always replayed. Yeah, this distinction is another bit of effectively-dead code left over from Vadim's original plan of using WAL for UNDO. I haven't worried about ripping it out because it doesn't cost much and it seems that distinguishing transactional from nontransactional changes might be useful for log analysis if nothing else. > Yep, that's right. The reconstructed page is not always byte-to-byte > identical to the original. We don't worry about recovering cmin/cmax since only the originating transaction would have cared. I think physical location of tuples on a page isn't reliably reproduced either. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: