| From: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch |
| Date: | 2019-05-02 07:09:26 |
| Message-ID: | CACPNZCtKRXUs0w4w_E68v=6w5RcfpzT5yB5ERNQfRqbtsxNXMg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 2:31 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> @@ -776,7 +776,10 @@ fsm_extend(Relation rel, BlockNumber fsm_nblocks)
> if ((rel->rd_smgr->smgr_fsm_nblocks == 0 ||
> rel->rd_smgr->smgr_fsm_nblocks == InvalidBlockNumber) &&
> !smgrexists(rel->rd_smgr, FSM_FORKNUM))
> + {
> smgrcreate(rel->rd_smgr, FSM_FORKNUM, false);
> + fsm_clear_local_map(rel);
> + }
>
> I think this won't be correct because when we call fsm_extend via
> vacuum the local map won't be already existing, so it won't issue an
> invalidation call. Isn't it better to directly call
> CacheInvalidateRelcache here to notify other backends that their local
> maps are invalid now?
Yes, you're quite correct.
--
John Naylor https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2019-05-02 07:37:29 | Re: Failure in contrib test _int on loach |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2019-05-02 06:31:27 | Re: Unhappy about API changes in the no-fsm-for-small-rels patch |