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

Re: Order of operations in lazy_vacuum_rel

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Order of operations in lazy_vacuum_rel
Date: 2010-02-09 01:32:46
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Actually, after thinking about this some more, I realize that this code
>> has got a significantly bigger problem than just whether it will respond
>> to CANCEL promptly.

> Err, that problem was exactly why I added the interrupt holdoff in
> there, so if you've got a better/more invasive solution, it's very
> welcome.

Well, that's a pretty incomplete solution :-(.  Maybe we should do
something about this.  There wasn't any obvious solution before,
but now that we have the nontransactional smgr-level sinval messages
being sent on drops and truncates, it seems like tying rd_targblock
clearing to those would fix the problem.  The easiest way to do that
would involve moving rd_targblock down to the SMgrRelation struct.
Probably rd_fsm_nblocks and rd_vm_nblocks too.  Comments?

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-02-09 01:46:48
Subject: Re: Order of operations in lazy_vacuum_rel
Previous:From: Mark WongDate: 2010-02-09 01:32:17
Subject: Re: buildfarm breakage

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group