Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations
Date
Msg-id 7502.1406575797@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> One thing I am wondering about around this is: Why are we only
> processing catchup events when DoingCommandRead? There's other paths
> where we can wait for data from the client for a long time. Obviously we
> don't want to process async.c stuff from inside copy, but I don't see
> why that's the case for sinval.c.

It might be all right to do it during copy, but I'd just as soon treat
that as a separate issue.  If you merge it into the basic patch then it
might be hard to get rid of if there are problems.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: postgresql.auto.conf and reload
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations