Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2014-08-12 11:04:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:30 AM, MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >>> I've tracked down the real root cause. The fix is very simple. Please
>> >>> check the attached one-liner patch.
>> >
>> >> I'd support back-porting that commit to 9.1 and 9.2 as a fix for this
>> >> problem. As the commit message says, it's dead simple.
>> >
>> > While I have no great objection to back-porting Heikki's patch, it seems
>> > like a very large stretch to call this a root-cause fix. At best it's
>> > band-aiding one symptom in a rather fragile way.
>>
>> Yeah, that's true, but I'm not clear that we have another
>> back-patchable fix, so doing something almost-certainly-harmless to
>> alleviate the immediate pain seems worthwhile.
>
> Isn't that still leaving the very related issue of waits due to hot
> pruning open?

Yes. Do you have a back-patchable solution for that?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company