On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> On 30.11.2010 06:57, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I can't say I'm totally in love with any of these designs. Anyone >>> else have any ideas, or any opinions about which one is best? > >> Well, the design I've been pondering goes like this: > > Wouldn't it be easier and more robust to just consider VM bit changes to > be part of the WAL-logged actions? That would include updating LSNs on > VM pages and flushing VM pages to disk during checkpoint based on their > LSN values. All of these other schemes seem too complicated and not > provably correct.
What WAL-logged actions? The problem case is where a page has no tuples or line pointers that need to be removed, and all we need to do is mark it all-visible. We don't current WAL-log anything in that case. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
