Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums
Date
Msg-id 1367358848.9300.21.camel@sussancws0025
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums
Re: corrupt pages detected by enabling checksums
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 08:34 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Uh, wait a minute.  I think this is completely wrong.  The buffer is
> LOCKED for this entire sequence of operations.  For a checkpoint to
> "happen", it's got to write every buffer, which it will not be able to
> do for so long as the buffer is locked.

I went back and forth on this, so you could be right, but here was my
reasoning:

I was worried because SyncOneBuffer checks whether it needs writing
without taking a content lock, so the exclusive lock doesn't help. That
makes sense, because you don't want a checkpoint to have to get a
content lock on every buffer in the buffer pool. But it also means we
need to follow the rules laid out in transam/README and dirty the pages
before writing WAL.

> The effect of the change to lazy_scan_heap is to force the buffer to
> be written even if we're only updating the visibility map page.
> That's a bad idea and should be reverted.

The only time the VM and the data page are out of sync during vacuum is
after a crash, right? If that's the case, I didn't think it was a big
deal to dirty one extra page (should be extremely rare). Am I missing
something?

The reason I removed that special case was just code
complexity/readability. I tried preserving the previous behavior, and
it's not so bad, but it seemed unnecessarily ugly for the benefit of a
rare case.

Regards,Jeff Davis





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Martijn van Oosterhout
Date:
Subject: Re: Substituting Checksum Algorithm (was: Enabling Checksums)
Next
From: Dmitry Koterov
Date:
Subject: Incomplete description of pg_start_backup?