On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 02:37:43PM -0300, Álvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2021-Mar-18, Stephen Frost wrote: > > 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.
First, thanks for looking at these patches --- I know it isn't easy. Second, you are right that I equated WAL-skipping relfilenodes with relations, and this was wrong. I have updated the attached patch to use the term WAL-skipping "relfilenodes", and checked the rest of the patches for any incorrect 'skipping' term, but didn't find any. If "WAL-skipping relfilenodes" is not clear enough, we should probably rename RelFileNodeSkippingWAL(). -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
cfe-10-hint_over_cfe-09-test.diff.gz
Description: application/gzip
