Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage?

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Stuart Bishop <stuart(at)stuartbishop(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage?
Date: 2009-03-31 14:26:20
Message-ID: 20090331142620.GQ23023@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> The solution that seems most practical to me is to add a bool column
> to pg_class indicating "this is a temp table". Then, if that flag
> is set but it's not our own temp table (which we can tell easily),
> refuse to read. However, a patch of that size would take a little
> while to develop, and I'm not entirely sure it's worth the trouble.
> I can't remember having seen bugs of this type before.

If we had had this defense in place, it would have been obvious that
reindex and cluster were buggy. The code to skip temp tables was not
there from the beginning.

(We already have rel->rd_istemp, but it's not what we need here.)

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-03-31 14:35:54 Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage?
Previous Message Chris.Ellis 2009-03-31 14:21:42 Re: Server Performance

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-03-31 14:35:54 Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failure and database outage?
Previous Message Nikhil Sontakke 2009-03-31 14:03:44 Re: Partitioning feature ...