Re: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue)
Date
Msg-id 10838.958487549@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue)  ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>)
Responses RE: Actually it's a bufmgr issue (was Re: Another pg_listener issue)  ("Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
"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.  It's only emitting a
warning, because it thinks this condition suggests a bug in VACUUM.
But with the way bufmgr behaves now, the condition is actually fairly
normal, and so the warning is no longer of any value.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Problems with the new Majordomo 2.
Next
From: "Michael A. Olson"
Date:
Subject: Re: Berkeley DB license