> > I think you have identified a problem that needs
> > a more general solution: we need to be robust in the case that
> > an index entry is on disk that points to a tuple that never made
> > it to disk.

And this general solution is WAL.

Vadim

Tue, 9 May 2000 10:22:06 -0700 
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>
RE: Shouldn't flush dirty buffers at shutdown ? 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikheev, Vadim [mailto:vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM]
> 
> > > I think you have identified a problem that needs
> > > a more general solution: we need to be robust in the case that
> > > an index entry is on disk that points to a tuple that never made
> > > it to disk.
> 
> And this general solution is WAL.
>

Yes exactly.
But I've thought it's mainly for aborts in the middle of btree page
splitting or for system crash in which we couldn't expect synchronous
flushing of dirty buffers.
 
Now I feel I couldn't stop postmaster easily.
For example I have to read a sufficiently large table to
flush dirty buffers before shutdown of postmaster in my
test case. Must I recommend everyone to do so ?

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp 

Wed, 10 May 2000 08:38:31 +0900
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
RE: Shouldn't flush dirty buffers at shutdown ? 