Re: Dropping a partitioned table takes too long

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 高增琦 <pgf00a(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Dropping a partitioned table takes too long
Date: 2017-04-26 16:33:05
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaYOTP1A27wo-G9Jbp41YeEK78zuCjnq8Nn-pW_LShY0Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Amit Langote
>> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>>> Your patch seems to be a much better solution to the problem, thanks.
>
>> Does anyone wish to object to this patch as untimely?
>
>> If not, I'll commit it.
>
> It's certainly not untimely to address such problems. What I'm wondering
> is if we should commit both patches. Avoiding an unnecessary heap_open
> is certainly a good thing, but it seems like the memory leak addressed
> by the first patch might still be of concern in other scenarios.

I will defer to you on that. If you think that patch is a good idea,
please have at it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2017-04-26 16:36:13 Re: some review comments on logical rep code
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-04-26 16:29:20 Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables