Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?)
От | Melanie Plageman |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20230306192409.daz5ivq4mbbr2ye7@liskov обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?) (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 11:09:19AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2023-03-06 10:09:24 -0500, Melanie Plageman wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 1:48 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > > <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > At Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:24:25 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote in > > > > In any case, I think we need to avoid such concurrent autovacuum/analyze. > > > > > > If it is correct, I believe the attached fix works. > > > > Thanks for investigating this! > > > > Yes, this fix looks correct and makes sense to me. > > Wouldn't it be better to just perform the section from the ALTER TABLE till > the DROP TABLE in a transaction? Then there couldn't be any other accesses in > just that section. I'm not convinced it's good to disallow all concurrent > activity in other parts of the test. You mean for test coverage reasons? Because the table in question only exists for a few operations in this test file. - Melanie
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: