| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Ronan Dunklau <ronan(dot)dunklau(at)aiven(dot)io>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Failures in constraints regression test, "read only 0 of 8192 bytes" |
| Date: | 2024-03-10 20:59:52 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJU1hb2jZQWEDniUEU2E1sz_8gUhccg7+Uj0kzBeSCPJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 9:30 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> Barring objections, I'll commit the attached.
+1
I guess the comment for smgrreleaseall() could also be updated. It
mentions only PROCSIGNAL_BARRIER_SMGRRELEASE, but I think sinval
overflow (InvalidateSystemCaches()) should also be mentioned?
> Hmm, I'm not sure if we need even smgrreleaseall() here anymore. It's
> not required for correctness AFAICS. We don't do it in single-rel
> invalidation in RelationCacheInvalidateEntry() either.
I think we do, because we have missed sinval messages. It's unlikely
but a relfilenode might have been recycled, and we might have file
descriptors that point to the unlinked files. That is, there are new
files with the same names and we need to open those ones.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-03-10 21:32:09 | Re: Failures in constraints regression test, "read only 0 of 8192 bytes" |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-03-10 20:30:54 | Re: Failures in constraints regression test, "read only 0 of 8192 bytes" |