Re: slow dropping of tables, DropRelFileNodeBuffers, tas

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On 7 June 2012 14:56, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Say what? That's a performance result and proves not a damn thing about
>> safety.

> Of course not.

> Based on the rationale explained in the code comments in the patch, it
> seems like a reasonable thing to me now.

> The argument was that since we hold AccessExclusiveLock on the
> relation, no other agent can be reading in new parts of the table into
> new buffers, so the only change to a buffer would be away from the
> dropping relation, in which case we wouldn't care. Which seems correct
> to me.

Oh, I must be confused about which patch we are talking about --- I
thought this was in reference to some of the WIP ideas that were being
thrown about with respect to using lock-free access primitives.  Which
patch are you proposing for commit now, exactly?

			regards, tom lane