Re: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue)
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue) |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 10838.958487549@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | RE: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue) ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>) |
| Ответы |
RE: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue)
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.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. It's only emitting a
warning, because it thinks this condition suggests a bug in VACUUM.
But with the way bufmgr behaves now, the condition is actually fairly
normal, and so the warning is no longer of any value.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: