FAQ

On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 04:05, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
A simple idea would be to add the committed subxact Xids to the
xl_xact_commit and xl_xact_abort structs. However, this will be a
variable length array, and those structs already have variable length
arrays at the end (filenodes to drop). I don't see how would I overlay
that into a C struct.
Just means you have to do some address arithmetic instead of being able
to reference the additional data as a struct member. Tedious but hardly
difficult. See for instance the handling of "move" data in
XLOG_HEAP_MOVE records, or "unused" data in XLOG_HEAP_CLEAN.

I'd not recommend emitting additional xlog records unless there's a
genuine log-semantics-related reason for doing so. (Thinks about it...)
It seems like you'd want to emit a subtrans abort record to carry
information about file deletions, but there's no real need to emit
subtrans commit records, is there?
Should we write a subtrans commit record when WAL_DEBUG is set? We could
remove it completely in the future when the interaction between PITR
recovery and subtransactions have been fully covered off.

My thinking is that subtransactions themselves are not valid recovery
targets. As long as we can tell the top level commits from the
subtransactions then it should be easy to recover. My thinking is that
if a subtransaction id is wrongly quoted as a recover point, then this
would be treated as a "rollforward to txnid X, but do not include this
one". Does that make sense? Does everything we have support that?

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts

Previous

Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 3 of 23 | next ›
Discussion Overview
grouppgsql-hackers @
categoriespostgresql
postedMay 10, '04 at 11:13p
activeMay 12, '04 at 9:20a
posts23
users5
websitepostgresql.org...
irc#postgresql

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase