Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag
От | Artur Zakirov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9d16ad58-3546-1269-0073-7038efe83dc5@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Should buffer of initialization fork have aBM_PERMANENT flag
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 10.03.2017 04:00, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:25 PM, Artur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >> I think this is good fixes. I've checked them. And in my opinion they are >> correct. >> >> The code also is good. > > Having something with conflicts is not nice, so attached is a rebased version. Thank you! I've rerun regression and TAP tests. They all passed. Also maybe it will be good to fix comments. In buf_internals.h: > #define BM_PERMANENT (1U << 31) /* permanent relation (not > * unlogged) */ And in FlushBuffer(): > /* > * Force XLOG flush up to buffer's LSN. This implements the basic WAL > * rule that log updates must hit disk before any of the data-file changes > * they describe do. > * > * However, this rule does not apply to unlogged relations, which will be > * lost after a crash anyway. Most unlogged relation pages do not bear Because BM_PERMANENT is used for init forks of unlogged indexes now. -- Artur Zakirov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: