Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: slow dropping of tables, DropRelFileNodeBuffers, tas

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Sergey Koposov <koposov(at)ast(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: slow dropping of tables, DropRelFileNodeBuffers, tas
Date: 2012-06-07 23:45:40
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 7 June 2012 22:54, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I thought it would be a lot safer and probably a little bit quicker
> if we just split DropRelFileNodeBuffers into two routines, one for
> the specific-fork case and one for the all-forks case; and then the
> same for its main caller smgrdounlink.  So I modified the patch along
> those lines and committed it.
> As committed, the smgrdounlinkfork case is actually dead code; it's
> never called from anywhere.  I left it in place just in case we want
> it someday.

That's fine. The first version of the patch did it exactly that way.

I tried to double guess objections and so recoded it the way submitted.

 Simon Riggs         
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-06-08 00:06:44
Subject: Re: log_newpage header comment
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2012-06-07 23:42:22
Subject: Re: WalSndWakeup() and synchronous_commit=off

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group