| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes |
| Date: | 2012-07-17 00:35:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobEGtOGy2efGp26Jc6Uc3k5DoKrO5g0kzqWF=L-vFkb_Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The attached patch covers everything discussed in this thread, except
> for the buggy handling of stats, which I think should be fixed in a
> separate patch since it's only relevant to 9.2+.
With respect to this chunk:
+ * We do not need to go through this dance for temp relations, though, because
+ * we never make WAL entries for temp rels, and so a temp rel poses no threat
+ * to the health of a regular rel that has taken over its relfilenode number.
...I would say that a clearer way to put this is that temporary
relations use a different file naming convention than permanent
relations and therefore there can never be any confusion between the
two.
Other than that, looks fine to me.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-17 01:58:43 | Re: CompactCheckpointerRequestQueue versus pad bytes |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-07-17 00:29:26 | Re: Using pg_upgrade on log-shipping standby servers |