From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues) |
Date: | 2010-08-15 21:17:50 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimcna8WUNfEGpAzpp5PEJ5pX+zP072NJXWTaN-D@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In the discussion of bug #5599 we pretty much agreed to do this:
>> Seems like we need to think harder about recovering from a truncate
>> failure. A few random ideas:
>> 1. Write the dirty buffers before dropping them. Kind of ugly from a
>> performance viewpoint, but simple and safe.
>
> I looked at making this happen, and noted that DropRelFileNodeBuffers
> is used both for the truncation case and for dropping relation buffers
> during smgrdounlink. In the latter case, it's still appropriate to
> drop dirty buffers without writing them, both for performance reasons
> and because we don't really care about any errors: we have already
> committed the relation DROP, and are not going to look at the file
> contents again in any case. So this means that two different behaviors
> are now required for truncation and dropping.
>
> The cleanest fix is an API change to add a boolean write-or-not
> parameter to DropRelFileNodeBuffers. That's what I want to do in HEAD
> and 9.0, but I'm unsure whether it's a safe fix in the back branches.
> Does anyone have an opinion whether it's likely that any third-party
> code is calling DropRelFileNodeBuffers directly? If there is, then
> changing its API in a minor release would be an unfriendly thing to do.
> We could avoid that by some ugly expedient like inserting a second copy
> of the function in back branches.
>
> Comments?
I really hate this solution, because writing out data that we're about
to throw away just in case we can't actually throw it away seems like
a real waste from a performance standpoint. Could we avoid this
altogether by allocating a new relfilenode on truncate?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-08-15 21:17:54 | Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues) |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-08-15 20:48:34 | Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2010-08-15 21:17:54 | Re: DropRelFileNodeBuffers API change (was Re: [BUGS] BUG #5599: Vacuum fails due to index corruption issues) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-15 21:15:58 | Re: LockDatabaseObject vs. LockSharedObject |