| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
| Date: | 2021-06-17 18:22:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobQEyoT4zpxfNn68LvWwNnSjg_wy7z6903Q2HD1xHfaVg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:17 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Adding a hacky special case implementation for cross-database relation
> accesses that violates all kinds of assumptions (like holding a lock on
> a relation when accessing it / pinning pages, processing relcache
> invals, ...) doesn't seem like a good plan.
I agree that we don't want hacky code that violates assumptions, but
bypassing shared_buffers is a bit hacky, too. Can't we lock the
relations as we're copying them? We know pg_class's OID a fortiori,
and we can find out all the other OIDs as we go.
I'm just thinking that the hackiness of going around shared_buffers
feels irreducible, but maybe the hackiness in the patch is something
that can be solved with more engineering.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-06-17 18:34:11 | Re: Add version macro to libpq-fe.h |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-06-17 18:17:15 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |