| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations |
| Date: | 2014-07-28 19:34:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20140728193403.GT17793@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-07-28 15:29:57 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-07-28 19:59:37 | Re: [w32] test_shm_mq test suite permanently burns connections slots |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-28 19:29:57 | Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations |