| From: | Yuhang Qiu <iamqyh(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Palak Chaturvedi <chaturvedipalak1911(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)databricks(dot)com>, Haoyu Huang <haoyu(dot)huang(at)databricks(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart |
| Date: | 2026-09-22 03:45:51 |
| Message-ID: | D9C34DE7-0CA7-4397-B4FC-05034D247F6C@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Palak,
Thanks for the update. 0013 and 0015 LGTM.
Two more points:
- pg_resize_shared_buffers() lacks a permission check, although the
documentation says it is restricted to superusers.
- In test 006, evicting the low-numbered buffers leaves those slots
available for reuse, so the victim may still be below the shrink target.
The test can therefore bail out before attempting the shrink. What would
be a reliable way to arrange an in-progress read above the target?
Best regards,
Yuhang Qiu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Manu | 2026-09-22 03:54:17 | Re: Temp schema drop leaves an inconsistent state behind |
| Previous Message | Brian Cosgrove | 2026-09-22 03:38:39 | Re: Add PAM Tests and Option For Custom PAM Config Location |