| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: wrong fds used for refilenodes after pg_upgrade relfilenode changes Reply-To: |
| Date: | 2022-04-02 05:04:09 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+uPTQiLYOz7FDwHtnoPjBh+Y8VUvuhjHPNW-y1oi7WZg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 10:03 AM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Another idea would be to call a new function DropPendingWritebacks(),
> and also tell all the SMgrRelation objects to close all their internal
> state (ie the fds + per-segment objects) but not free the main
> SMgrRelationData object, and for good measure also invalidate the
> small amount of cached state (which hasn't been mentioned in this
> thread, but it kinda bothers me that that state currently survives, so
> it was one unspoken reason I liked the smgrcloseall() idea). Since
> DropPendingWritebacks() is in a rather different module, perhaps if we
> were to do that we'd want to rename PROCSIGNAL_BARRIER_SMGRRELEASE to
> something else, because it's not really a SMGR-only thing anymore.
Here's a sketch of that idea.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-WIP-Rethink-PROCSIGNAL_BARRIER_SMGRRELEASE.patch | text/x-patch | 7.2 KB |
| 0002-WIP-fix-old-fd-issues-using-global-barriers-everywhe.patch | text/x-patch | 2.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-04-02 05:10:39 | Re: A test for replay of regression tests |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-04-02 04:08:32 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |