Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2))

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2))
Date: 2009-01-22 16:51:34
Message-ID: 603c8f070901220851idc7987ale14a76d528b04d4f@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-01-22 at 16:15 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>
>>> That might be useful. But again, could just as well be implemented as an
>>> external tool like pglesslog.
>>
>> There is no WAL record for "no-op", at least not one of variable length.
>
> Hmm, maybe there should be? That seems like a useful thing to have for
> external tools.
>
>> The WAL files can't just have chunks of zeroes in the middle of them,
>> they must be CRC valid and chained together in the exact byte position.
>> There isn't any way to do this, even if there were, that's a seriously
>> complex way of doing that.
>
> Hmm, I think you could remove the records in the middle, rechain the
> remaining ones, recalculate the crc, and put an xlog switch record at the
> end. I agree that's seriously complicated, a no-op record would be much
> simpler.

Would I be pushing my luck if I suggested that maybe a pluggable rmgr
would also be much simpler, and we already have a patch for that? :-)

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Chernow 2009-01-22 16:54:37 Re: libpq WSACleanup is not needed
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2009-01-22 16:32:28 Re: Pluggable Indexes (was Re: rmgr hooks (v2))