| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2022-03-22 09:00:05 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-vr9JS0+VW-T_SZNZ7GiB4J4DR_WYTnhTK+hKmM13cMQQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:28 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> I think this make sense. I haven't changed the original patch as you
> told you were improving on some comments, so in order to avoid
> conflict I have created this add on patch.
>
In my previous patch mistakenly I used src_dboid instead of
dest_dboid. Fixed in this version. For destination db I have used
lock mode as AccessSharedLock. Logically if we see access wise we
don't want anyone else to be accessing that db but that is anyway
protected because it is not visible to anyone else. So I think
AccessSharedLock should be correct here because we are just taking
this lock because we are accessing pages in shared buffers from this
database's relations.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| lock_destination_db_and_rel_v1.patch | text/x-patch | 2.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexey Kondratov | 2022-03-22 09:23:35 | Re: Supply restore_command to pg_rewind via CLI argument |
| Previous Message | Yugo NAGATA | 2022-03-22 08:53:17 | Re: Tab completion for ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW ... SET ACCESS METHOD |