Re: Failures in constraints regression test, "read only 0 of 8192 bytes"
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Failures in constraints regression test, "read only 0 of 8192 bytes" |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKG+DsyK+brNKiKMyLX7g1TfErt3+Y5fERD+yJBVGRdStpQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Failures in constraints regression test, "read only 0 of 8192 bytes" (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 9:59 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 9:30 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote: > > Hmm, I'm not sure if we need even smgrreleaseall() here anymore. It's > > not required for correctness AFAICS. We don't do it in single-rel > > invalidation in RelationCacheInvalidateEntry() either. > > I think we do, because we have missed sinval messages. It's unlikely > but a relfilenode might have been recycled, and we might have file > descriptors that point to the unlinked files. That is, there are new > files with the same names and we need to open those ones. ... though I think you would be right if Dilip and Robert had succeeded in their quest to introduce 56-bit non-cycling relfilenodes. And for the record, we can also shoot ourselves in the foot in another known case without sinval[1], so more work is needed here, but that doesn't mean this sinval code path should also aim footwards. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BhUKGLs554tQFCUjv_vn7ft9Xv5LNjPoAd--3Df%2BJJKJ7A8kw%40mail.gmail.com#f099d68e95edcfe408818447d9da04a7
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: