From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Suspicious behaviour on applying XLOG_HEAP2_VISIBLE. |
Date: | 2016-04-27 15:59:39 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob3gw+=D3rZybP8fZtMVGB14jDPVoMwSxGsjQetTy69xg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2016-04-27 14:27:33 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > In other words, I think Masahiko Sawada's patch in the original post
>> > is pretty much right on target, except that we don't need to do that
>> > always, but rather only in the FPI case when the call to
>> > visibilitymap_pin() is being optimized away. If we solve the problem
>> > that way, I don't think we even need a new WAL record for this case,
>> > which is a non-trivial fringe benefit.
>>
>> The visibility map is not the only thing that need to be addressed,
>> no?
>
> If I understand Robert correctly his point is about fixing the smgr
> inval alone - without the invalidation fix that'd not be enough because
> the relcache info with outdated information (particularly relallvisible
> et al), would continue to be valid. Relcache invalidations imply an smgr
> one, but not the other way round.
>
> The reason the fix for nmsg > 0 && !markXidCommitted isn't entirely
> sufficient is because the smgr invalidation isn't transaction bound,
> i.e. sent out immediately. So, to have the same behaviour on master/HS,
> we need a way to send out the invalidiation properly in lockstep with
> replay.
What I'm confused about here is:
Masahiko Sawada posted a patch that fixes the problem for him, which
does not involve any new WAL record type. It also seems to be fixing
the problem in a way that is clean and consistent with what we've done
elsewhere.
The patch actually under discussion here manages to introduce a new
WAL record type without fixing that problem.
Therefore I include that the committed patch fixes some *other*
problem, not the one that this thread is ostensibly about.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-27 16:00:43 | Re: pgindent |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-04-27 15:57:17 | Re: pgindent |