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: 4483.1265679166@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
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

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

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