Horton

Re: Postmaster holding unlinked files for pg_largeobject table

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>

View thread
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Kevin Grittner <kevin.grittner@wicourts.gov>, alexk <alexk@commandprompt.com>, Alexander Shulgin <ash@commandprompt.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-06-09T17:59:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Reset reindex-in-progress state before reverifying an exclusion constraint.

Attachments

Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié jun 08 14:28:02 -0400 2011:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Okay, here's a patch implementing this idea.  It seems to work quite
> > well, and it solves the problem in a limited testing scenario -- I
> > haven't yet tested on the customer machines.
> 
> This seems mostly sane, except I think you have not considered the
> issue of when to clear the smgr_transient flag on an existing
> SMgrRelation: if it starts getting used for "normal" accesses after
> having by chance been used for a blind write, we don't want the
> transient marking to persist.  That's why I suggested having smgropen
> always clear it.
> 
> Likewise, I think the FD_XACT_TRANSIENT flag on a VFD needs to go away
> at some point, probably once it's actually been closed at EOXACT, though
> there's doubtless more than one way to handle that.

Aha, I see -- makes sense.  Here's an updated patch.

> > This customer is running on 8.4 so I started from there; should I
> > backpatch this to 8.2, or not at all?
> 
> I'm not excited about back-patching it...

Bummer.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support