Re: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue)
Date: 2000-05-16 14:32:29
Message-ID: 10838.958487549@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Now VACUUM comes along, finds no live tuples, and decides to truncate
>> the relation to zero blocks. During the truncation,
>> FlushRelationBuffers sees that the buffer it's flushing is still marked
>> dirty, and hence emits the above notice.

> This means vacuum doesn't necessarily flush all dirty buffers of
> the target table. Doesn't this break the assumption of pg_upgrade ?

No, because it does still flush the buffer. It's only emitting a
warning, because it thinks this condition suggests a bug in VACUUM.
But with the way bufmgr behaves now, the condition is actually fairly
normal, and so the warning is no longer of any value.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael A. Olson 2000-05-16 14:44:45 Re: Berkeley DB license
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-05-16 14:29:31 Re: Problems with the new Majordomo 2.