Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andres Freund
Тема Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible
Дата
Msg-id 20240122201218.bclrdkwpmuk26fl3@awork3.anarazel.de
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Improve WALRead() to suck data directly from WAL buffers when possible  (Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2024-01-10 19:59:29 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> +        /*
> +         * Typically, we must not read a WAL buffer page that just got
> +         * initialized. Because we waited enough for the in-progress WAL
> +         * insertions to finish above. However, there can exist a slight
> +         * window after the above wait finishes in which the read buffer page
> +         * can get replaced especially under high WAL generation rates. After
> +         * all, we are reading from WAL buffers without any locks here. So,
> +         * let's not count such a page in.
> +         */
> +        phdr = (XLogPageHeader) page;
> +        if (!(phdr->xlp_magic == XLOG_PAGE_MAGIC &&
> +              phdr->xlp_pageaddr == (ptr - (ptr % XLOG_BLCKSZ)) &&
> +              phdr->xlp_tli == tli))
> +            break;

I still think that anything that requires such checks shouldn't be
merged. It's completely bogus to check page contents for validity when we
should have metadata telling us which range of the buffers is valid and which
not.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Does redundant extension exist During faster COPY in PG16
Следующее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: core dumps in auto_prewarm, tests succeed