Re: WAL consistency check facility - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kuntal Ghosh
Subject Re: WAL consistency check facility
Date
Msg-id CAGz5QCKF1h24BAoybdBjwyP-Pcz5opgXYtOX1PJM0Jmxbh0zUQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WAL consistency check facility  (Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: WAL consistency check facility  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Re: WAL consistency check facility  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rest of the suggestions are well-taken. I'll update the patch accordingly.
I've updated the last submitted patch(v10) with the following changes:
- added a block level flag BKPIMAGE_APPLY to distinguish backup image
blocks which needs to be restored during replay.
- at present, hash index operations are not WAL-logged. Hence, I've removed
the consistency check option for hash indices. It can be added later.

Few comments:
- Michael suggested to use an integer variable and bitwise-shift
operation to store
the RMGR values instead of using a boolean array. But, boolean array
implementation looks cleaner to me. For example,
+if (wal_consistency[rmid])
+       rechdr->xl_info |= XLR_CHECK_CONSISTENCY;

+include_image = needs_backup || wal_consistency[rmid];

- Another suggestion was to remove wal_consistency from PostgresNode.pm
because small buildfarm machines may suffer on it. Although I've no
experience in this matter, I would like to be certain that nothings breaks
in recovery tests after some modifications.

--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Karl O. Pinc"
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function
Next
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: delta relations in AFTER triggers