Re: WAL consistency check facility
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM3SWZT1GscDiKY=ZyouRKmU_NJ1tNq_Et8Vi22bQhTaBh_SzA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WAL consistency check facility (Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WAL consistency check facility
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com> wrote: > 2. For Btree pages, I've masked BTP_HALF_DEAD, BTP_SPLIT_END, > BTP_HAS_GARBAGE and BTP_INCOMPLETE_SPLIT flags. Why? I think that you should only perform this kind of masking where it's clearly strictly necessary. It is true that nbtree can allow cases where LP_DEAD is set with only a share lock (by read-only queries), so I can see why BTP_HAS_GARBAGE might need to be excluded; this is comparable to the heapam's use of hint bits. However, it is unclear why you need to mask the remaining btpo_flags that you list, because the other flags have clear-cut roles in various atomic operations that we WAL-log. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: