From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: wrong fds used for refilenodes after pg_upgrade relfilenode changes Reply-To: |
Date: | 2022-02-10 22:26:59 |
Message-ID: | 20220210222659.fqhdfi4wdscfsvl4@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-02-11 09:10:38 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I was about to commit that, because the original Windows problem it
> solved is showing up occasionally in CI failures (that is, it already
> solves a live problem, albeit a different and non-data-corrupting
> one):
+1
> It seems like I should go ahead and do that today, and we can study
> further uses for PROCSIGNAL_BARRIER_SMGRRELEASE in follow-on work?
Yes.
I wonder whether we really should make the barriers be conditional on
defined(WIN32) || defined(USE_ASSERT_CHECKING) as done in that patch, even
leaving wraparound dangers aside. On !windows we still have the issues of the
space for the dropped / moved files not being released if there are processes
having them open. That can be a lot of space if there's long-lived connections
in a cluster that doesn't fit into s_b (because processes will have random fds
open for writing back dirty buffers). And we don't truncate the files before
unlinking when done as part of a DROP DATABASE...
But that's something we can fine-tune later as well...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2022-02-10 22:37:26 | Re: Merging statistics from children instead of re-sampling everything |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-02-10 22:14:08 | Re: wrong fds used for refilenodes after pg_upgrade relfilenode changes Reply-To: |