Re: Postmaster holding unlinked files for pg_largeobject table
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postmaster holding unlinked files for pg_largeobject table |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1307642259-sup-7269@alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postmaster holding unlinked files for pg_largeobject table (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Postmaster holding unlinked files for pg_largeobject table
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié jun 08 14:28:02 -0400 2011: > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: > > Okay, here's a patch implementing this idea. It seems to work quite > > well, and it solves the problem in a limited testing scenario -- I > > haven't yet tested on the customer machines. > > This seems mostly sane, except I think you have not considered the > issue of when to clear the smgr_transient flag on an existing > SMgrRelation: if it starts getting used for "normal" accesses after > having by chance been used for a blind write, we don't want the > transient marking to persist. That's why I suggested having smgropen > always clear it. > > Likewise, I think the FD_XACT_TRANSIENT flag on a VFD needs to go away > at some point, probably once it's actually been closed at EOXACT, though > there's doubtless more than one way to handle that. Aha, I see -- makes sense. Here's an updated patch. > > This customer is running on 8.4 so I started from there; should I > > backpatch this to 8.2, or not at all? > > I'm not excited about back-patching it... Bummer. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: