| From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: logtape.c stats don't account for unused "prefetched" block numbers |
| Date: | 2020-09-15 06:52:32 |
| Message-ID: | d99fa72cec855bf84064f74e4b576c72a9a6d033.camel@j-davis.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 18:42 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> We still need to put the reliance on ltsWriteBlock() allocating many
> blocks before they've been logically written on some kind of formal
> footing for Postgres 13 -- it is now possible that an all-zero block
> will be left behind even after we're done writing and have flushed
> all
> temp buffers, which is a new thing.
Is the current direction of this thread (i.e. the two posted patches)
addressing your concern here?
Regards,
Jeff Davis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-09-15 07:00:54 | Re: logtape.c stats don't account for unused "prefetched" block numbers |
| Previous Message | Masahiro Ikeda | 2020-09-15 06:52:30 | Re: New statistics for tuning WAL buffer size |