Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [GENERAL] pgstattuple triggered checkpoint failureand 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 failureand database outage?
Date: 2009-03-31 14:26:20
Message-ID: 20090331142620.GQ23023@alvh.no-ip.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

pgsql-general by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group