Re: bug of recovery?

On 29.09.2011 14:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Florian Pflug<fgp@phlo.org>  wrote:
>> Actually, why don't we use that machinery to implement this? There's currently no rm_safe_restartpoint callback for RM_XLOG_ID, so we'd just need to create one that checks whether invalid_page_tab is empty.
>
> Okay, the attached patch prevents the creation of restartpoints by using
> rm_safe_restartpoint callback if we've not reached a consistent state yet
> and the invalid-page table is not empty. But the invalid-page table is not
> tied to the specific resource manager, so using rm_safe_restartpoint for
> that seems to slightly odd. Is this OK?

I don't think this should use the rm_safe_restartpoint machinery. As you 
said, it's not tied to any specific resource manager. And I've actually 
been thinking that we will get rid of rm_safe_restartpoint altogether in 
the future. The two things that still use it are the b-tree and gin, and 
I'd like to change both of those to not require any post-recovery 
cleanup step to finish multi-page operations, similar to what I did with 
GiST in 9.1.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com