| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
| Date: | 2022-03-21 13:36:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobS0wPbqZQHw3KXLXmOmAdmjhEcG14UBE4vErdETPWW8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 1:34 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I thought that way because IIUC, when we are locking the database
> tuple we are ensuring that we are calling
> ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages() right? And IIUC
> ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages(), is designed such a way that it will
> consume all the outstanding messages and that's the reason it loops
> multiple times if it identifies that the queue is full. And if my
> assumption here is correct then I think it is also correct that now we
> only need to worry about anyone generating new invalidations and that
> is not possible in this case.
Well, I don't see how that chain of logic addresses my concern about
sinval reset.
Mind you, I'm not sure there's an actual problem here, because I tried
testing the patch with debug_discard_caches=1 and nothing failed. But
I still don't understand WHY nothing failed.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-03-21 13:41:13 | Re: [PATCH] Remove workarounds to format [u]int64's |
| Previous Message | Japin Li | 2022-03-21 13:26:54 | Re: [PATCH] Add reloption for views to enable RLS |