Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobQEyoT4zpxfNn68LvWwNnSjg_wy7z6903Q2HD1xHfaVg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:17 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > Adding a hacky special case implementation for cross-database relation > accesses that violates all kinds of assumptions (like holding a lock on > a relation when accessing it / pinning pages, processing relcache > invals, ...) doesn't seem like a good plan. I agree that we don't want hacky code that violates assumptions, but bypassing shared_buffers is a bit hacky, too. Can't we lock the relations as we're copying them? We know pg_class's OID a fortiori, and we can find out all the other OIDs as we go. I'm just thinking that the hackiness of going around shared_buffers feels irreducible, but maybe the hackiness in the patch is something that can be solved with more engineering. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: