Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Andres Freund
Тема Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations
Дата
Msg-id 20140728193403.GT17793@alap3.anarazel.de
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 2014-07-28 15:29:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > One thing I am wondering about around this is: Why are we only
> > processing catchup events when DoingCommandRead? There's other paths
> > where we can wait for data from the client for a long time. Obviously we
> > don't want to process async.c stuff from inside copy, but I don't see
> > why that's the case for sinval.c.
> 
> It might be all right to do it during copy, but I'd just as soon treat
> that as a separate issue.  If you merge it into the basic patch then it
> might be hard to get rid of if there are problems.

Yea, not planning to merge it. Just wondering to make sure I understand
all the implications.

Another thing I'm wondering about - also not for the basic patch - is
accepting termination while writing to the client. It's rather annoying
that we currently don't allow to pg_terminate_backend() when writing to
the client.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [w32] test_shm_mq test suite permanently burns connections slots