| 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: | 2022-03-19 18:33:10 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobZsJXOcXtnVnYoqOXXOi7oRgRen9bHpnjeiG1Y5mpdzw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 12:39 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > One question that occurred to me when looking this over is whether, or
> > why, it's safe against concurrent smgr invalidations.
>
> We are only accessing the smgr of the source database and the
> destination database. And there is no one else that can be connected
> to the source db and the destination db is not visible to anyone. So
> do we really need to worry about the concurrent smgr invalidation?
> What am I missing?
A sinval reset can occur at any moment due to an overflow of the
queue. That acts as a universal reset of everything. So you can't
reason on the basis of what somebody might be sending.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-03-19 18:48:11 | Re: Problem with moderation of messages with patched attached. |
| Previous Message | Yugo NAGATA | 2022-03-19 18:23:21 | Re: [HACKERS] WIP aPatch: Pgbench Serialization and deadlock errors |