| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: refactoring relation extension and BufferAlloc(), faster COPY |
| Date: | 2023-02-21 15:40:31 |
| Message-ID: | 784ad72f-d525-305a-5ab4-45519702a401@iki.fi |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> v2-0006-bufmgr-Support-multiple-in-progress-IOs-by-using-.patch
This looks straightforward. My only concern is that it changes the order
that things happen at abort. Currently, AbortBufferIO() is called very
early in AbortTransaction(), and this patch moves it much later. I don't
see any immediate problems from that, but it feels scary.
> @@ -2689,7 +2685,6 @@ InitBufferPoolAccess(void)
> static void
> AtProcExit_Buffers(int code, Datum arg)
> {
> - AbortBufferIO();
> UnlockBuffers();
>
> CheckForBufferLeaks();
Hmm, do we call AbortTransaction() and ResourceOwnerRelease() on
elog(FATAL)? Do we need to worry about that?
- Heikki
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Isaac Morland | 2023-02-21 16:12:42 | Unable to create table of view row type |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2023-02-21 15:16:33 | Re: refactoring relation extension and BufferAlloc(), faster COPY |