Horton

Re: Dropping a partitioned table takes too long

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>, 高增琦 <pgf00a@gmail.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-04-26T16:22:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>> Your patch seems to be a much better solution to the problem, thanks.

> Does anyone wish to object to this patch as untimely?

> If not, I'll commit it.

It's certainly not untimely to address such problems.  What I'm wondering
is if we should commit both patches.  Avoiding an unnecessary heap_open
is certainly a good thing, but it seems like the memory leak addressed
by the first patch might still be of concern in other scenarios.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. In load_relcache_init_file, initialize rd_pdcxt.

  2. Speed up dropping tables with many partitions.