| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Full page images in WAL & Cache Invalidation |
| Date: | 2007-07-22 21:42:14 |
| Message-ID: | 4894.1185140534@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
>> Anyway, if you believe that DDL is infrequent, why are you resistant
>> to the idea of WAL-logging cache flushes?
> First, cache invalidations are not the only problem caused by replaying
> system-table updates. The whole SnapshotNow
> business doesn't exactly make things easier too. So it feels like a
> lot of added complexity and code for little gain - unless a *lot*
> more things (like locking requests) are logged too.
The mention of locking requests brought to mind the following
gedankenexperiment:
1. slave server backend is running some long-running query on table X.
2. WAL-reading process receives and executes DROP TABLE X.
(It doesn't even have to be a DROP; most varieties of ALTER are enough
to create problems for a concurrently-running query.)
It's really hard to see how to defend against that without a fairly
complete simulation of locking on the slave side.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-07-22 22:07:25 | Re: Full page images in WAL & Cache Invalidation |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-07-22 21:26:03 | Re: Full page images in WAL & Cache Invalidation |