

Vadim Mikheev wrote:

> Hi, All
>
> First, as I've already mentioned in answer to Tom about DROP TABLE, undo
> logic
> will not be implemented in 7.1 -:( Doable for tables but for indices we
> would need
> either in compensation records or in xmin/cmin in index tuples. So, we'll
> still live
> with dust from aborted xactions in our tables/indices.
>

Does it mean that there would still be inconsistency between
tables and their indexes ?

Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue


Mon, 30 Oct 2000 13:02:48 +0900
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Re: WAL status update
> > First, as I've already mentioned in answer to Tom about DROP TABLE, undo
> > logic will not be implemented in 7.1 -:( Doable for tables but for
indices we
> > would need either in compensation records or in xmin/cmin in index
tuples.
> > So, we'll still live with dust from aborted xactions in our
tables/indices.
>
> Does it mean that there would still be inconsistency between
> tables and their indexes ?

Not related. I just meant to say that tuples inserted into tables/indices by
aborted transactions will stay there till vacuum.
Redo should guarantee that index tuples will not be lost in split operation
(what's possible now), but not that an index will have correct structure
after crash - parent page may be unupdated, what could be handled
at run time.

Vadim



Sun, 29 Oct 2000 23:10:00 -0800
"Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev@sectorbase.com>
Re: WAL status update
Vadim Mikheev writes:

> WAL todo list looks like:

So what's the latest on going beta?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:56:37 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: WAL status update

I believe that its just resting on Vadim again to give us the go ahead
... which I believe its always been on his shoulders, no? :)

Vadim?  

On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> Vadim Mikheev writes:
> 
> > WAL todo list looks like:
> 
> So what's the latest on going beta?
> 
> -- 
> Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/
> 
> 

Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org 
primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org 


Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:41:44 -0400 (AST)
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: WAL status update
Vadim Mikheev writes:

> WAL with rollforward logic is available for testing but yet requires
> re-compiling with -DXLOG flag. Note that regress tests are passed but
> it doesn't mean anything. What is required is testing how recovery
> does work (just run pg_ctl -m i stop after some changes in db and test
> db after restart). Also, I've tested it for single running transaction
> only. xlog.c:XLOG_DEBUG is on currently and results in high output to
> stderr.

The first test did not go very well.  I did a fresh compile, initdb,
started the postmaster, ran 'make installcheck' (sequential regression
tests), and sent a kill -QUIT to the postmaster during the numeric test.
Then I restarted the postmaster and got a load of lines like

REDO @ 0/434072; LSN 0/434100: prev 0/433992; xprev 0/433992; xid
17278: Transaction - commit: 2000-10-31 23:21:29
REDO @ 0/434100; LSN 0/434252: prev 0/434072; xprev 0/0; xid 17279: Heap -
insert: node 19008/1259; cid 0; tid 1/43

after which it finished with

Startup failed - abort

-- 
Peter Eisentraut      peter_e@gmx.net       http://yi.org/peter-e/


Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:48:49 +0100 (CET)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Re: WAL status update