Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoaCOA66JqM9CLpm8AwCrJdvh28B=_3idsw6zBL8tEbOmg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'll review after that, since I have other things to review meanwhile. > > Attached, please find the rebased patch attached with this e-mail. > There is no fundamental change in patch except for adapting the new > locking strategy in squeeze operation. I have done the sanity testing > of the patch with master-standby setup and Kuntal has helped me to > verify it with his wal-consistency checker patch. This patch again needs a rebase, but before you do that I'd like to make it harder by applying the attached patch to remove _hash_chgbufaccess(), which I think is a bad plan for more or less the same reasons that motivated the removal of _hash_wrtbuf() in commit 25216c98938495fd741bf585dcbef45b3a9ffd40. I think there's probably more simplification and cleanup that can be done afterward in the wake of this; what I've done here is just a mechanical replacement of _hash_chgbufaccess() with LockBuffer() and/or MarkBufferDirty(). The point is that having MarkBufferDirty() calls happen implicitly instead some other function is not what we want for write-ahead logging. Your patch gets rid of that, too; this is just doing it somewhat more thoroughly. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: