Re: unlogged tables

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: unlogged tables
Date: 2010-12-07 22:09:18
Message-ID: AANLkTi=SsJUZ1wKuMBiAd_Dj0P-sgtcQceQMHXje-0H8@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Hm... I thought there had been discussion of a couple of different
>>> flavors of table volatility.  Is it really a good idea to commandeer
>>> the word "volatile" for this particular one?
>
>> So far I've come up with the following possible behaviors we could
>> theoretically implement:
>
>> 1. Any crash or shutdown truncates the table.
>> 2. Any crash truncates the table, but a clean shutdown does not.
>> 3. A crash truncates the table only if it's been written since the
>> last checkpoint; a clean shutdown does not truncate it.
>
>> The main argument for doing #1 rather than #2 is that we'd rather not
>> have to include unlogged table data in checkpoints.  Andres Freund
>> made the argument that we could avoid that anyway, though, by just
>> doing an fsync() on every unlogged table file in the cluster at
>> shutdown time.  If that's acceptable, then ISTM there's no benefit to
>> implementing #1 and we should just go with #2.  If it's not
>> acceptable, then we have to think about whether and how to have both
>> of those behaviors.
>
>> #3 seems like a lot of work relative to #1 and #2 for a pretty
>> marginal increase in durability.
>
> OK.  I agree that #3 adds a lot of complexity for not much of anything.
> If you've got data that's static enough that #3 adds a useful amount
> of safety, then you might as well be keeping it in a regular table.
>
> I think a more relevant question is how complicated it'll be to issue
> those fsyncs --- do you have a concrete implementation in mind?

It can reuse most of the infrastructure we use for re-initializing
everything after a crash or unclean shutdown. We just iterate over
every tablepace/dbspace directory and look for files with _init forks.
If we find any then we open the main fork files and fsync() each one.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-12-07 22:28:25 Re: Final(?) proposal for wal_sync_method changes
Previous Message flyusa2010 fly 2010-12-07 22:06:22 random write in xlog?