Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations
Date: 2014-08-11 23:40:30
Message-ID: 472.1407800430@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:30 AM, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I've tracked down the real root cause. The fix is very simple. Please
>> check the attached one-liner patch.

> I'd support back-porting that commit to 9.1 and 9.2 as a fix for this
> problem. As the commit message says, it's dead simple.

While I have no great objection to back-porting Heikki's patch, it seems
like a very large stretch to call this a root-cause fix. At best it's
band-aiding one symptom in a rather fragile way.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-08-12 00:05:57 Re: failures on barnacle (CLOBBER_CACHE_RECURSIVELY) because of memory leaks
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2014-08-11 22:30:31 Re: bad estimation together with large work_mem generates terrible slow hash joins