Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZop14dZoN0v017jAQDD+cfSqYAG_mFSWhw_mxF8Sx=0A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 8:03 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> What we've discussed somewhere in the past is to always truncate N+1 when
> creating the first page in N. I.e. if we extend into 23456.1, we truncate
> 23456.2 to 0 blocks.  As far as I can tell, that'd solve this issue?

Yeah, although leaving 23456.2 forever unless and until that happens
doesn't sound amazing.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: enhancing plpgsql debug api - hooks on statements errors and function errors
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: Orphaned wait event