RE: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue)
От | Hiroshi Inoue |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | NDBBIJLOILGIKBGDINDFAEBMCFAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] > > "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes: > >> Now VACUUM comes along, finds no live tuples, and decides to truncate > >> the relation to zero blocks. During the truncation, > >> FlushRelationBuffers sees that the buffer it's flushing is still marked > >> dirty, and hence emits the above notice. > > > This means vacuum doesn't necessarily flush all dirty buffers of > > the target table. Doesn't this break the assumption of pg_upgrade ? > > No, because it does still flush the buffer. Yes FlushRelationBuffers notices and flushes dirty buffers >= the specified block. But doesn't it notice dirty buffers < the specified block ? Or does vacuum flush all pages < the specified block while processing ? Regards. Hiroshi Inoue Inoue@tpf.co.jp
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: