Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing
Date
Msg-id 20061030213958.GA31329@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 12:05 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > > Ugh.  Is there another solution to this?  Say, sync the buffer so that
> > > the hint bits are written to disk?
> >
> > Yeah.  The original design for all this is explained by the notes for
> > TruncateCLOG:
> >
> >  * When this is called, we know that the database logically contains no
> >  * reference to transaction IDs older than oldestXact.    However, we must
> >  * not truncate the CLOG until we have performed a checkpoint, to ensure
> >  * that no such references remain on disk either; else a crash just after
> >  * the truncation might leave us with a problem.
> >
> > The pre-8.2 coding is actually perfectly safe within a single database,
> > because TruncateCLOG is only called at the end of a database-wide
> > vacuum, and so the checkpoint is guaranteed to have flushed valid hint
> > bits for all tuples to disk.  There is a risk in other databases though.
> > I think that in the 8.2 structure the equivalent notion must be that
> > VACUUM has to flush and fsync a table before it can advance the table's
> > relminxid.
>
> Ouch! We did discuss that also. Flushing the buffercache is nasty with
> very large caches, so this makes autovacuum much less friendly - and
> could take a seriously long time if you enforce the vacuum delay
> costings.
>
> ISTM we only need to flush iff the clog would be truncated when we
> update relminxid. Otherwise we are safe to update even if we crash,
> since the clog will not have been truncated.

I don't understand.  When clog is actually going to be truncated, if
it's determined that there's any page that can be truncated, then a
checkpoint is forced.  If no page is going to be removed then there's no
checkpoint, which makes a lot of sense and of course avoids the problem
of useless flushes.

In fact I don't understand what's the point about multiple databases vs.
a single database.  Surely a checkpoint would flush all buffers in all
databases, no?  This would flush all hint bits, everywhere.  So this bug
does not really exist.

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: "Simon Riggs"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging freezing