Re: [GSoC2014] Patch ALTER TABLE ... SET LOGGED

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> >> Em sexta-feira, 22 de agosto de 2014, Alvaro Herrera <
> >> alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> escreveu:
> >>
> >> > Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I forgot to mention... I did again a lot of tests using different
> >> > > replication scenarios to make sure all is ok:
> >> > > - slaves async
> >> > > - slaves sync
> >> > > - cascade slaves
> >> >
> >> > On v13 you mean?
> >> >
> >> Exactly!
> >
> > Great.  Pushed.  Thanks for the patch.
>
> Hmm.  I confess to not having paid enough attention to this, but:
>
> 1. Loggedness is not a word.  I think that "persistence" or
> "relpersistence" would be better.
>

> 2. The patch seems to think that it can sometimes be safe to change
> the relpersistence of an existing relation.  Unless you can be sure
> that no buffers can possibly be present in shared_buffers and nobody
> will use an existing relcache entry to read a new one in, it's not,
> because the buffers won't have the right BM_PERSISTENT marking.  I'm
> very nervous about the fact that this patch seems not to have touched
> bufmgr.c, but maybe I'm missing something.
>

Because of this concern I implement a solution pointed by Andres [1].

Regards,

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20140717230220.GK21370@awork2.anarazel.de

--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
>> Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
>> Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io
>> Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
>> Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello