From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |
Date: | 2015-12-09 07:41:40 |
Message-ID: | 20151209074140.GH28762@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-12-09 16:30:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I'm kinda wondering if it wouldn't have been better to go through shared
> > buffers in ResetUnloggedRelationsInDbspaceDir() instead of using
> > copy_file().
>
> For deployment with large shared_buffers settings, wouldn't that be
> actually more costly than the current way of doing? We would need to
> go through all the buffers at least once and look for the INIT_FORKNUM
> present to flush them.
We could just check the file sizes on disk, and the check for the
contents of all the pages for each file.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2015-12-09 07:52:30 | Re: Remaining 9.5 open items |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-12-09 07:30:47 | Re: Error with index on unlogged table |