mirror of https://github.com/postgres/postgres
Add to TODO.detail/walcontrol.
This commit is contained in:
parent
b3769066b8
commit
3f8984039a
|
@ -3319,3 +3319,61 @@ above, we can do it.
|
|||
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
|
||||
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
|
||||
|
||||
From simon@2ndquadrant.com Thu Jan 5 16:56:25 2006
|
||||
Return-path: <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
|
||||
Received: from smtp.nildram.co.uk (smtp.nildram.co.uk [195.112.4.54])
|
||||
by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k05LuPb02246
|
||||
for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 16:56:25 -0500 (EST)
|
||||
Received: from [192.168.0.3] (unknown [84.12.184.6])
|
||||
by smtp.nildram.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP
|
||||
id A9F0F268C4E; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 21:56:18 +0000 (GMT)
|
||||
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [Bizgres-general] WAL bypass for INSERT, UPDATE and
|
||||
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
|
||||
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
|
||||
cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>,
|
||||
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>, Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca>,
|
||||
Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
|
||||
In-Reply-To: <200601051727.k05HR5p02803@candle.pha.pa.us>
|
||||
References: <200601051727.k05HR5p02803@candle.pha.pa.us>
|
||||
Content-Type: text/plain
|
||||
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:56:21 +0000
|
||||
Message-ID: <1136498181.21025.285.camel@localhost.localdomain>
|
||||
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
||||
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4)
|
||||
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
|
||||
Status: OR
|
||||
|
||||
On Thu, 2006-01-05 at 12:27 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
|
||||
|
||||
> Seems like a nice optimization.
|
||||
|
||||
Negative thoughts: Toast tables have a toast index on them, yes? We have
|
||||
agreed that we cannot use the optimization if we have indexes on the
|
||||
main table. It follows that we cannot use the optimization if we have
|
||||
*any* toasted data, since that would require a pointer between two
|
||||
blocks, which would not be correctly recovered following a crash. If we
|
||||
log the toast table then there could be a mismatch between heap and
|
||||
toast table; if we don't log the toast table there could be a mismatch
|
||||
between toast table and toast index.
|
||||
|
||||
We can test to see if the toast table is empty when we do ALTER TABLE,
|
||||
but loading operations may try to create toasted data rows.
|
||||
|
||||
Presumably that means we must either:
|
||||
i) abort a COPY if we get a toastable value
|
||||
ii) if we get a toastable value, insert the row into a new block, which
|
||||
we do logging of, then also log the toast insert and the toast index
|
||||
insert - i.e. some blocks we log, others not
|
||||
|
||||
This is still useful for many applications, IMHO, but the list of
|
||||
restrictions seems to be growing. Worse, we wouldn't know that the toast
|
||||
tables were empty until after we did the COPY TO for a pg_dump, so we
|
||||
wouldn't be able to retrospectively add an ALTER TABLE command ahead of
|
||||
the COPY.
|
||||
|
||||
Thoughts? Hopefully there are some flaws in my thinking here,
|
||||
|
||||
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue