Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Hi, At Sun, 2 Oct 2016 21:43:46 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote in <CAB7nPqTKOyHkrBSxvvSBZCXvU9F8OT_uumXmST_awKsswQA5Sg@mail.gmail.com> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > At Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:59:55 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote in <CAB7nPqT5x05tG7aut1yz+WJN76DqNz1Jzq46fSFtee4YbY0YcA@mail.gmail.com> > >> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > >> <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > >> > Hello, I return to this before my things:) > >> > > >> > Though I haven't played with the patch yet.. > >> > >> Be sure to run the test cases in the patch or base your tests on them then! > > > > All items of 006_truncate_opt fail on ed0b228 and they are fixed > > with the patch. > > > >> > Though I don't know how it actually impacts the perfomance, it > >> > seems to me that we can live with truncated_to and sync_above in > >> > RelationData and BufferNeedsWAL(rel, buf) instead of > >> > HeapNeedsWAL(rel, buf). Anyway up to one entry for one relation > >> > seems to exist at once in the hash. > >> > >> TBH, I still think that the design of this patch as proposed is pretty > >> cool and easy to follow. > > > > It is clean from certain viewpoint but additional hash, > > especially hash-searching on every HeapNeedsWAL seems to me to be > > unacceptable. Do you see it accetable? > > > > > > The attached patch is quiiiccck-and-dirty-hack of Michael's patch > > just as a PoC of my proposal quoted above. This also passes the > > 006 test. The major changes are the following. > > > > - Moved sync_above and truncted_to into RelationData. > > > > - Cleaning up is done in AtEOXact_cleanup instead of explicit > > calling to smgrDoPendingSyncs(). > > > > * BufferNeedsWAL (replace of HeapNeedsWAL) no longer requires > > hash_search. It just refers to the additional members in the > > given Relation. > > > > X I feel that I have dropped one of the features of the origitnal > > patch during the hack, but I don't recall it clearly now:( > > > > X I haven't consider relfilenode replacement, which didn't matter > > for the original patch. (but there's few places to consider). > > > > What do you think about this? > > I have moved this patch to next CF. (I still need to look at your patch.) Thanks for considering that. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
Commits
-
Add perl2host call missing from a new test file.
- 70de4e950c3b 13.0 landed
-
Skip WAL for new relfilenodes, under wal_level=minimal.
- c6b92041d385 13.0 landed
- 9db4b9da2801 9.5.22 landed
- a653bd8aa76e 9.6.18 landed
- 9d6215205e5a 10.13 landed
- 03b89f1949a9 11.8 landed
- e4b0a02ef8c8 12.3 landed
- cb2fd7eac285 13.0 landed
-
Revert "Skip WAL for new relfilenodes, under wal_level=minimal."
- b31e96ba420f 9.5.22 landed
- 348f15e22e94 9.6.18 landed
- 0a6c9c66da26 10.13 landed
- 63631ee64f84 12.3 landed
- 2fbdebc248ec 11.8 landed
- de9396326edc 13.0 landed
-
Back-patch log_newpage_range().
- e0dd086414f7 9.5.22 landed
- 14d2bb4941e6 9.6.18 landed
- 43434ed94d80 10.13 landed
- ae86e46c3b7b 11.8 landed
-
During heap rebuild, lock any TOAST index until end of transaction.
- a8f754aea014 9.6.18 landed
- 978da2a95597 9.5.22 landed
- 78a34c68920a 10.13 landed
- 88b3a6cd2623 12.3 landed
- 4433c6e8c0a5 11.8 landed
- e629a01f6973 13.0 landed
-
In log_newpage_range(), heed forkNum and page_std arguments.
- a5abec521c5d 12.3 landed
- d3e572855be1 13.0 landed
-
Back-patch src/test/recovery and PostgresNode from 9.6 to 9.5.
- 12034da6cc39 9.5.22 landed
-
Reduce pg_ctl's reaction time when waiting for postmaster start/stop.
- c61559ec3a41 10.0 cited
-
Accelerate end-of-transaction dropping of relations
- 279628a0a7cf 9.3.0 cited
-
Redesign the planner's handling of index-descent cost estimation.
- 31f38f28b00c 9.3.0 cited
-
Make TRUNCATE do truncate-in-place when processing a relation that was created
- cab9a0656c36 9.0.0 cited