Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled
Date
Msg-id 47176A64.60108@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> The best I can think of is to rename the obsolete file to
>> <relfilenode>.stale, when it's scheduled for deletion at next
>> checkpoint, and check for .stale-suffixed files in GetNewRelFileNode,
>> and delete them immediately in DropTableSpace.
> 
> This is getting too Rube Goldbergian for my tastes.  What if we just
> make DROP TABLESPACE force a checkpoint before proceeding?

True, that would work. DROP TABLESPACE should be uncommon enough that
the performance hit is ok. We only need to checkpoint if the directory
isn't empty, though I think that's the case more often than not; you're
most likely to drop a tablespace right after dropping all relations in it.

--  Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Pavel Stehule"
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: generate_iterator functions
Next
From: "Florian G. Pflug"
Date:
Subject: Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled