Re: Freezing without cleanup lock

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Freezing without cleanup lock
Date: 2015-10-21 19:52:23
Message-ID: 380530E1-91C6-4E99-A045-0EAFE8E872F1@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On October 21, 2015 9:47:45 PM GMT+02:00, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
>> While warning a client that just did a Slony-based version upgrade to
>
>> make sure to freeze the new database, it occurred to me that it
>should
>> be safe to freeze without the cleanup lock.
>
>What's your argument for that being safe?

It doesn't affect tuple contents and thus backends having a pin can continue looking at tuple contents. The reason we need a cleanup lock is IIRC repairing page fragmentation / hot pruning, not freezing.

Andres

---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira 2015-10-21 19:56:02 Re: Duplicated assignment of slot_name in walsender.c
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-10-21 19:47:45 Re: Freezing without cleanup lock