Re: storing an explicit nonce
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Antonin Houska <ah@cybertec.at>, Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>, Sasasu <i@sasa.su>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-10-12T14:39:53Z
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 →
-
Rethink method for assigning OIDs to the template0 and postgres DBs.
- 2cb1272445d2 15.0 landed
-
pg_upgrade: Preserve database OIDs.
- aa01051418f1 15.0 landed
-
pg_upgrade: Preserve relfilenodes and tablespace OIDs.
- 9a974cbcba00 15.0 landed
-
Fix for new Boolean node
- cf925936ecc0 15.0 cited
-
Improve error handling of HMAC computations
- 5513dc6a304d 15.0 cited
-
Add macro RelationIsPermanent() to report relation permanence
- 95d77149c535 14.0 landed
-
Enhance nbtree index tuple deletion.
- d168b666823b 14.0 cited
Greetings, * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 1:30 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote: > > Regarding unlogged LSNs at least, I would think that we'd want to > > actually use GetFakeLSNForUnloggedRel() instead of just having it zero'd > > out. The fixed value for GiST index pages is just during the index > > build process, as I recall, and that's perhaps less of a concern. Part > > of the point of using XTS is to avoid the issue of the LSN not being > > changed when hint bits are, or more generally not being unique in > > various cases. > > I don't believe there's anything to prevent the fake-LSN counter from > overtaking the real end-of-WAL, and if that should happen, then the > buffer manager would get confused. Maybe that can be fixed by doing > some sort of surgery on the buffer manager, but it doesn't seem to be > a trivial or ignorable problem. Using fake LSNs isn't new.. how is this not a concern already then? Also wondering why the buffer manager would care about the LSN on pages which are not BM_PERMANENT..? I'll admit that I might certainly be missing something here. Thanks, Stephen