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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations
Date: 2014-08-12 17:11:55
Message-ID: 3257.1407863515@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-08-12 11:56:41 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Yes. Do you have a back-patchable solution for that?

> The easiest thing I can think of is sprinkling a few
> SetConfigOption('synchronous_commit', 'off',
> PGC_INTERNAL, PGC_S_OVERRIDE,
> GUC_ACTION_LOCAL, true, ERROR);

This still seems to me to be applying a band-aid that covers over some
symptoms; it's not dealing with the root cause that we've overloaded
the signal handling mechanism too much. What reason is there to think
that there are no other symptoms of that?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2014-08-12 17:14:22 Re: PL/PgSQL: RAISE and the number of parameters
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-08-12 16:59:49 Re: [PATCH] PostgreSQL 9.4 mmap(2) performance regression on FreeBSD...