From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Ole Gjerde" <gjerde(at)icebox(dot)org>, "Bruce Momjian" <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: [HACKERS] Current TODO list |
Date: | 1999-05-24 00:23:23 |
Message-ID: | 000e01bea57b$a242cd80$2801007e@cadzone.tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Gjerde [mailto:gjerde(at)icebox(dot)org]
> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 1999 1:37 AM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Hiroshi Inoue; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Current TODO list
>
>
> On Thu, 20 May 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
[snip]
>
> > > But my anxiety is the use of unlink()(FileNameUnlink()).
> > > Unlink() is very dangerous.
> > > Unlink() never remove the target file immediately.and even the
> > > truncating process doesn't close the files by the patch and so
> > > unlinked files are still alive for all processes which have already
> > > opened the files.
>
> I don't think unlink() is a problem. That other backends have the files
> open shouldn't matter. Whenever they close it(should be pretty quick),
When are those files closed ?
AFAIC,they are kept open until the backends which reference those files
finish.
Certainly,those files are re-opened(without closing) by backends after
vacuum,though I don't know it's intentional or caused by side-effect.
But unfortunately,re-open is not sufficiently quick.
And I think that the assumption of mdtruncate() is not clear.
Could we suppose that unlinked files are closed quickly for all backends
by the caller of mdunlink() ?
Thanks.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-05-24 00:43:33 | Re: [HACKERS] strange behavior of UPDATE |
Previous Message | Andy Lewis | 1999-05-24 00:21:08 | Full Text Searches |