| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: GiST insert algorithm rewrite |
| Date: | 2010-11-17 18:29:53 |
| Message-ID: | 4CE41F21.6070004@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 17.11.2010 19:46, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
> I disagree with that opinion: if we crash between 2 and 3 then why will
> somebody update parent before WAL replay? WAL replay process in this
> case should complete child split by inserting "invalid" pointer and tree
> become correct again, although it needs to repair "invalid" pointers.
> The same situation with b-tree: WAL replay repairs incomplete split
> before any other processing.
>
> Or do I miss something important?
Yeah, see the thread that started this:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg00052.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/12375.1289429390@sss.pgh.pa.us
The code currently relies on the end-of-recovery processing to finish
the incomplete, but I'm trying to get rid of that end-of-recovery
processing altogether.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-11-17 18:32:27 | Re: unlogged tables |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-17 18:26:59 | Re: Indent authentication overloading |