Re: Lowering the ever-growing heap->pd_lower
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Lowering the ever-growing heap->pd_lower |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-WznpQ=KkSfd6GmaWEezS=2h40szF3OE1RsV-aLBCATGnNw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Lowering the ever-growing heap->pd_lower (Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Lowering the ever-growing heap->pd_lower
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 6:28 AM Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Hmm, there is no information in WAL to describe the line pointers > being truncated by PageTruncateLinePointerArray(). We just truncate > every time we see a XLOG_HEAP2_VACUUM record and presume it does the > same thing as the original change. > > If that is safe, then we don't need to put the truncation on a WAL > record at all, we just truncate after every XLOG_HEAP2_PRUNE record. I agree that that's how we'd do it. This approach is no different to assuming that PageRepairFragmentation() reliably produces a final defragmented page image deterministically when called after we prune. These days we automatically verify assumptions like this via wal_consistency_checking. It would absolutely be able to catch any bugs in PageTruncateLinePointerArray(), since the truncate code path has plenty of coverage within the regression tests. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: