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

On 2014-08-12 11:04:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:30 AM, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>> I've tracked down the real root cause. The fix is very simple. Please
> >>> check the attached one-liner patch.
> >
> >> I'd support back-porting that commit to 9.1 and 9.2 as a fix for this
> >> problem. As the commit message says, it's dead simple.
> >
> > While I have no great objection to back-porting Heikki's patch, it seems
> > like a very large stretch to call this a root-cause fix. At best it's
> > band-aiding one symptom in a rather fragile way.
>
> Yeah, that's true, but I'm not clear that we have another
> back-patchable fix, so doing something almost-certainly-harmless to
> alleviate the immediate pain seems worthwhile.

Isn't that still leaving the very related issue of waits due to hot
pruning open?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

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