| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, k(dot)jamison(at)fujitsu(dot)com, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist |
| Date: | 2020-09-02 03:47:23 |
| Message-ID: | 286147.1599018443@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Even if the relation is locked, background processes like checkpointer
> can still touch the relation which might cause problems. Consider a
> case where we extend the relation but didn't flush the newly added
> pages. Now during truncate operation, checkpointer can still flush
> those pages which can cause trouble for truncate. But, I think in the
> recovery path such cases won't cause a problem.
I wouldn't count on that staying true ...
/message-id/CA+hUKGJ8NRsqgkZEnsnRc2MFROBV-jCnacbYvtpptK2A9YYp9Q@mail.gmail.com
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | k.jamison@fujitsu.com | 2020-09-02 03:48:55 | RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-09-02 02:48:06 | Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist |