Horton

Re: Key management with tests

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>

View thread
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2021-03-18T17:37:43Z
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. Rethink method for assigning OIDs to the template0 and postgres DBs.

  2. pg_upgrade: Preserve database OIDs.

  3. pg_upgrade: Preserve relfilenodes and tablespace OIDs.

  4. Fix for new Boolean node

  5. Improve error handling of HMAC computations

  6. Add macro RelationIsPermanent() to report relation permanence

  7. Enhance nbtree index tuple deletion.

On 2021-Mar-18, Stephen Frost wrote:

> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org) wrote:
> > Patch 10 uses the term "WAL-skip relations".  What does that mean?  Is
> > it "relations that are not WAL-logged"?  I suppose we already have a
> > term for this; I'm not sure it's a good idea to invent a different term
> > that is only used in this new place.
> 
> This is discussed in src/backend/access/transam/README, specifically the
> section that talks about Skipping WAL for New RelFileNode.  Basically,
> it's the 'wal_level=minimal' optimization which allows WAL to be
> skipped.

Hmm ... that talks about WAL-skipping *changes*, not WAL-skipping
*relations*.  I thought WAL-skipping meant unlogged relations, but
I understand now that that's unrelated.  In the transam/README, WAL-skip
means a change in a transaction in a relfilenode that, if rolled back,
would disappear; and I'm not sure I understand how the code is handling
the case that a relation is under that condition.

This caught my attention because a comment says "encryption does not
support WAL-skipped relations", but there's no direct change to the
definition of RelFileNodeSkippingWAL() to account for that.  Perhaps I
am just overlooking something, since I'm just skimming anyway.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera       Valdivia, Chile