Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation
Date: 2023-04-25 15:42:43
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZop14dZoN0v017jAQDD+cfSqYAG_mFSWhw_mxF8Sx=0A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 8:03 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> What we've discussed somewhere in the past is to always truncate N+1 when
> creating the first page in N. I.e. if we extend into 23456.1, we truncate
> 23456.2 to 0 blocks. As far as I can tell, that'd solve this issue?

Yeah, although leaving 23456.2 forever unless and until that happens
doesn't sound amazing.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bharath Rupireddy 2023-04-25 15:54:58 Re: Orphaned wait event
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2023-04-25 15:32:47 Re: enhancing plpgsql debug api - hooks on statements errors and function errors