From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade may be mortally wounded |
Date: | 1999-08-03 16:12:05 |
Message-ID: | 199908031612.MAA05918@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Cached copies of system tables obviously are no problem, since
> pg_upgrade doesn't overwrite those. I'm concerned whether there can
> be cached copies of pages from user tables or indexes. Since we've
> just done a bunch of CREATE INDEXes (and a VACUUM, if my latest hack
> is right), it seems at least possible that this would happen.
>
> Now all those user tables will be empty (zero-length files), so there is
> nothing to cache. But the user indexes are *not* zero-length --- it looks
> like they are at least 2 pages long even when empty. So there seems
> to be a real risk of having a cached copy of one of the pages of a user
> index while pg_upgrade is overwriting the index file with new data...
Oh, I see. That would be a problem.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-08-03 16:13:55 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads |
Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 1999-08-03 16:10:17 | Re: [HACKERS] Threads |