Re: [HACKERS] Unlogged tables cleanup - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Unlogged tables cleanup
Date
Msg-id 20190514052215.GA1889@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Unlogged tables cleanup  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Unlogged tables cleanup  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 09:33:52PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-05-14 13:23:28 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> What's actually the reason preventing us from delaying the
>> checkpointer like the index AMs for the logging of heap init fork?
>
> I'm not following. What do you mean by "delaying the checkpointer"?

I mean what Robert has mentioned here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZ4TWaPCKhF-szV-nPxDXL40zCwm9pNFJZURvRgm2oJzQ@mail.gmail.com

And my gut tells me that he got that right, because we are discussing
about race conditions with crashes and checkpoints in-between calls to
smgrimmedsync() and log_newpage().  That could be invasive for
back-branches, but for HEAD this would make the whole init fork
handling saner.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Tab completion for CREATE TYPE