No, not for now. Maybe for 8.2. And maybe as a contrib tool at first after
all.
- Heikki
On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Heikki, do you have any interest in completing your file checking patch
for inclusion in 8.1 by adding tablespace information and other fixes as
requested by Tom
Heikki, do you have any interest in completing your file checking patch
for inclusion in 8.1 by adding tablespace information and other fixes as
requested by Tom below? The current patch version is at:
ftp://candle.pha.pa.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches
called checkfiles*.
Anyone else want
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 10 May 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> The current code is nice and localized and doesn't add any burden on our
> >> existing code, which is already complicated enough. I think we either
> >> fix checkfiles.c, or we remov
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> The current code is nice and localized and doesn't add any burden on our
>> existing code, which is already complicated enough. I think we either
>> fix checkfiles.c, or we remove it and decide it isn't w
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > The current code is nice and localized and doesn't add any burden on our
> > existing code, which is already complicated enough. I think we either
> > fix checkfiles.c, or we remove it and decide it isn't worth checking f
On Tue, 10 May 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
The current code is nice and localized and doesn't add any burden on our
existing code, which is already complicated enough. I think we either
fix checkfiles.c, or we remove it and decide it isn't worth checking for
unrefrenced files.
Let's pull the patch
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 8 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>> While your original patch is buggy, it's at least fixable and has
>> localized, limited impact. I don't think these schemes are safe
>> at all --- they put a great deal more weight on the semantics of
>> the fi
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On Sun, 8 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > While your original patch is buggy, it's at least fixable and has
> > localized, limited impact. I don't think these schemes are safe
> > at all --- they put a great deal more weight on the semantics of
> > the filesystem than
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
While your original patch is buggy, it's at least fixable and has
localized, limited impact. I don't think these schemes are safe
at all --- they put a great deal more weight on the semantics of
the filesystem than I care to do.
I'm going to try this some more,
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [ shrug ] It's still broken, and the reason is that there's no
>> equivalent of fsync for directory operations. Consider
> Traditionally that's because directory operations were always
> synchronous, and hence didn'
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Consider the variant with extra marker files. In that case, backend B
> > doesn't have to know about the .notcommitted status to flush the buffers.
>
> [ shrug ] It's still broken, and the reason is that t
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Consider the variant with extra marker files. In that case, backend B
> doesn't have to know about the .notcommitted status to flush the buffers.
[ shrug ] It's still broken, and the reason is that there's no
equivalent of fsync for directory oper
On Sat, 7 May 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Maybe we should take a different approach to the problem:
1. Create new file with an extension to mark that it's not
yet committed (eg. 1234.notcommitted)
This is pushing the problem into the wrong place, viz the
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe we should take a different approach to the problem:
> 1. Create new file with an extension to mark that it's not
> yet committed (eg. 1234.notcommitted)
This is pushing the problem into the wrong place, viz the lowest-level
file access rou
Maybe we should take a different approach to the problem:
1. Create new file with an extension to mark that it's not
yet committed (eg. 1234.notcommitted)
2. ...
3. Take CheckpointStartLock
4. Write commit record to WAL, with list of created files.
5. rename created file (1234.notcommitted -> 12
15 matches
Mail list logo
