Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYLj89MH3YQEmuDxpC+K7y5Ydq80LC0_x6MC+6QwNqPNg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations ("MauMau" <maumau307@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:30 AM, MauMau <maumau307@gmail.com> wrote: > I've tracked down the real root cause. The fix is very simple. Please > check the attached one-liner patch. > > I confirmed that the fix is already in 9.3 and 9.5devel, so I just copied > the code fragment from 9.5devel to 9.2.9. The attached patch is for 9.2.9. > I didn't check 9.4 and other versions. Why wasn't the fix applied to 9.2? It was considered a performance improvement - i.e. a feature - rather than a bug fix, so it was only added to master. That was after the release of 9.2 and before the release of 9.3, so it's in newer branches but not older ones. Author: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@iki.fi> Branch: master Release: REL9_3_BR [c9d7dbacd] 2013-01-29 10:43:33 +0200 Skip truncating ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS temp tables, if the transaction hasn't touched any temporary tables. We could try harder, and keep track of whether we've inserted to any temp tables, rather than accessed them, and whichtemp tables have been inserted to. But this is dead simple, and already covers many interesting scenarios. I'd support back-porting that commit to 9.1 and 9.2 as a fix for this problem. As the commit message says, it's dead simple. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: