From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues) |
Date: | 2010-08-15 21:42:43 |
Message-ID: | 5947.1281908563@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 15/08/10 21:58, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Does anyone have an opinion whether it's likely that any third-party
>>> code is calling DropRelFileNodeBuffers directly?
>>
>> I doubt it. External modules shouldn't be modifying relations at such a low
>> level.
> Really? What about an index access method?
An index AM might have a reason to call smgrtruncate, but I can't see an
argument why it should need to call DropRelFileNodeBuffers directly.
The built-in AMs certainly never did.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-15 21:59:06 | Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-15 21:39:08 | Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-15 21:59:06 | Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-15 21:39:08 | Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues) |