| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alexandre Felipe <o(dot)alexandre(dot)felipe(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #19686: Rolling back SET TABLESPACE |
| Date: | 2026-09-29 23:39:40 |
| Message-ID: | 714053.1790725180@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> I don't think copying the file at commit is a good path, we shouldn't make
> commits take arbitrarily long without pretty darn good reason. I don't think
> this is that.
+1. Moving operations with a significant probability of failure into
COMMIT is also an anti-pattern.
> What about forcing indexes to be copied to a new relfilenode when copying the
> underlying table?
That seems like the logical solution to me. Nobody will be surprised
if ALTER SET TABLESPACE takes a long time for a big table; at least
not if they understand that it requires copying the data somewhere
else. Imposing costs at COMMIT time might well surprise people.
The one disadvantage I see is that (I imagine) a common use-case is
to move both a table and its indexes to a new tablespace, and this
solution will imply that that sequence double-copies the indexes.
Maybe it'd be worth providing a command variant that copies the
table and its indexes to a new tablespace in one step. But that
is a future optimization, not part of the bug fix; and I could be
wrong about whether anyone even cares.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-09-29 23:46:29 | Re: injection_points: canceled or terminated waiters leak their wait slots |
| Previous Message | surya poondla | 2026-09-29 22:31:31 | Re: pg_walinspect: add functions to locate and list WAL by time and LSN |