Re: Key management with tests - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Key management with tests
Date
Msg-id 20210318173743.GA13514@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Key management with tests  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: Key management with tests  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Re: Key management with tests  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2021-Mar-18, Stephen Frost wrote:

> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
> > Patch 10 uses the term "WAL-skip relations".  What does that mean?  Is
> > it "relations that are not WAL-logged"?  I suppose we already have a
> > term for this; I'm not sure it's a good idea to invent a different term
> > that is only used in this new place.
> 
> This is discussed in src/backend/access/transam/README, specifically the
> section that talks about Skipping WAL for New RelFileNode.  Basically,
> it's the 'wal_level=minimal' optimization which allows WAL to be
> skipped.

Hmm ... that talks about WAL-skipping *changes*, not WAL-skipping
*relations*.  I thought WAL-skipping meant unlogged relations, but
I understand now that that's unrelated.  In the transam/README, WAL-skip
means a change in a transaction in a relfilenode that, if rolled back,
would disappear; and I'm not sure I understand how the code is handling
the case that a relation is under that condition.

This caught my attention because a comment says "encryption does not
support WAL-skipped relations", but there's no direct change to the
definition of RelFileNodeSkippingWAL() to account for that.  Perhaps I
am just overlooking something, since I'm just skimming anyway.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera       Valdivia, Chile



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: GROUP BY DISTINCT
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Key management with tests