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+TgmoaD8y=ONGBy_f_7UhRb9NgKZcPNyi5B1RZe5-q+2uhEMw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval
message for temp relations
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> 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'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. > > While I have no great objection to back-porting Heikki's patch, it seems > like a very large stretch to call this a root-cause fix. At best it's > band-aiding one symptom in a rather fragile way. Yeah, that's true, but I'm not clear that we have another back-patchable fix, so doing something almost-certainly-harmless to alleviate the immediate pain seems worthwhile. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: