| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers |
| Date: | 2015-06-29 01:57:23 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZrPikGs=BCFWUg0ouXx4KpnR2Nken8XfR0nyYY=s49ag@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I'm not sure what you consider "dire", but missing a dirty buffer
> belonging to the to-be-destroyed table would result in the system being
> permanently unable to checkpoint, because attempts to write out the buffer
> to the no-longer-extant file would fail. You could only get out of the
> situation via a forced database crash (immediate shutdown), followed by
> replaying all the WAL since the time of the problem. In production
> contexts that could be pretty dire.
Hmm, that is kind of ugly. Is the write actually going to fail,
though, or is it just going to create a sparse file?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-06-29 02:07:56 | Re: anole: assorted stability problems |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-06-29 01:33:21 | Re: Solaris testers wanted for strxfrm() behavior |