From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue) |
Date: | 2000-05-16 16:38:57 |
Message-ID: | NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFAEBMCFAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> >> Now VACUUM comes along, finds no live tuples, and decides to truncate
> >> the relation to zero blocks. During the truncation,
> >> FlushRelationBuffers sees that the buffer it's flushing is still marked
> >> dirty, and hence emits the above notice.
>
> > This means vacuum doesn't necessarily flush all dirty buffers of
> > the target table. Doesn't this break the assumption of pg_upgrade ?
>
> No, because it does still flush the buffer.
Yes FlushRelationBuffers notices and flushes dirty buffers >=
the specified block. But doesn't it notice dirty buffers < the
specified block ? Or does vacuum flush all pages < the
specified block while processing ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-05-16 16:57:16 | Re: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue) |
Previous Message | Brian E Gallew | 2000-05-16 16:33:17 | Re: Berkeley DB license |