Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobpcwVtQ2y+N0yKK9YCDb+9akDNyXWyOhb1AT1srZQ1oA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:04 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 7:51 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Other than that, I have fixed some mistakes in comments and supported
> > tab completion for the new options.
>
> I was looking at 0001 and 0002 again and realized that I swapped the
> names load_relmap_file() and read_relmap_file() from what I should
> have done. Here's a revised version. With this, read_relmap_file() and
> write_relmap_file() become functions that just read and write the file
> without touching any global variables, and load_relmap_file() is the
> function that reads data from the file and puts it into a global
> variable, which seems more sensible than the way I had it before.

Regarding 0003 and 0005, I'm not a fan of 'bool isunlogged'. I think
'bool permanent' would be better (note BM_PERMANENT). This would
involve reversing true and false.

Regarding 0004, I can't really see a reason for this function to take
a LockRelId as a parameter rather than two separate OIDs. I also can't
entirely see why it should be called LockRelationId. Maybe
LockRelationInDatabaseById(Oid dbid, Oid relid, LOCKMODE lockmode)?
Note that neither caller actually has a LockRelId available; both have
to construct one.

Regarding 0005:

+       CREATEDB_WAL_LOG = 0,
+       CREATEDB_FILE_COPY = 1

I still think you don't need = 0 and = 1 here.

I'll probably go through and do a pass over the comments once you post
the next version of this. There seems to be work needed in a bunch of
places, but it probably makes more sense for me to go through and
adjust the things that seem to need it rather than listing a bunch of
changes for you to make.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Imseih (AWS), Sami"
Date:
Subject: Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: refactoring basebackup.c (zstd workers)