Horton

Re: B-tree parent pointer and checkpoints

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>

View thread
From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
Date: 2011-09-05T18:55:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Rewrite the GiST insertion logic so that we don't need the post-recovery

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 11.03.2011 19:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>  writes:
> >> On 11.03.2011 17:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> But that will be fixed during WAL replay.
> >
> >> Not under the circumstances that started the original thread:
> >
> >> 1. Backend splits a page
> >> 2. Checkpoint starts
> >> 3. Checkpoint runs to completion
> >> 4. Crash
> >> (5. Backend never got to insert the parent pointer)
> >
> >> WAL replay starts at the checkpoint redo pointer, which is after the
> >> page split record, so WAL replay won't insert the parent pointer. That's
> >> an incredibly tight window to hit in practice, but it's possible in theory.
> >
> > Hmm.  It's not so improbable that checkpoint would start inside that
> > window, but that the parent insertion is still pending by the time the
> > checkpoint finishes is pretty improbable.
> >
> > How about just reducing the deletion-time ERROR for missing downlink to a LOG?
> 
> Well, the code that follows expects to have a valid parent page locked, 
> so you can't literally do just that. But yeah, LOG and aborting the page 
> deletion seems fine to me.

Did this get fixed?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +