| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: heap_sync seems rather oblivious to partitioned tables (wal_level=minimal) |
| Date: | 2018-09-19 21:48:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20180919214858.65bwponiuqb3rnn2@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-09-19 12:06:47 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 01:14:10PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to modify copy.c to just perform the heap_sync
> > on just the partitions it touches?
>
> Yeah, my gut is telling me that this would be the best approach for now,
> still I am not sure that this is the best move in the long term.
ISTM heap_sync() would be the entirely wrong layer to handle
partitioning. For several reasons: 1) With pluggable storage, we want to
have multiple different table implementations, doing the syncing on the
heap_* for partitions would thus be wrong. 2) In just about all cases we
only want to sync a few partitions, there's not really a use-case for
doing syncs across all partitions imo.
> All the other callers of heap_sync don't care about partitioned
> tables, so we could add an assertion on RELKIND_PARTITIONED_TABLE.
Or rather, it should assert the expected relkinds?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2018-09-19 21:50:40 | Re: [HACKERS] SERIALIZABLE with parallel query |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-09-19 21:46:02 | Re: PATCH: pgbench - option to build using ppoll() for larger connection counts |