RE: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue)

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue)
Date: 2000-05-16 16:38:57
Message-ID: NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFAEBMCFAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >> Now VACUUM comes along, finds no live tuples, and decides to truncate
> >> the relation to zero blocks. During the truncation,
> >> FlushRelationBuffers sees that the buffer it's flushing is still marked
> >> dirty, and hence emits the above notice.
>
> > This means vacuum doesn't necessarily flush all dirty buffers of
> > the target table. Doesn't this break the assumption of pg_upgrade ?
>
> No, because it does still flush the buffer.

Yes FlushRelationBuffers notices and flushes dirty buffers >=
the specified block. But doesn't it notice dirty buffers < the
specified block ? Or does vacuum flush all pages < the
specified block while processing ?

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-05-16 16:57:16 Re: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue)
Previous Message Brian E Gallew 2000-05-16 16:33:17 Re: Berkeley DB license