On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:01 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> At Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:02:28 +0000, "k.jamison@fujitsu.com" <k.jamison@fujitsu.com> wrote in
> > On Tuesday, August 18, 2020 3:05 PM (GMT+9), Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Today, again thinking about this point it occurred to me that during recovery
> > > we can reliably find the relation size and after Thomas's recent commit
> > > c5315f4f44 (Cache smgrnblocks() results in recovery), we might not need to
> > > even incur the cost of lseek. Why don't we fix this first for 'recovery' (by
> > > following something on the lines of what Andres suggested) and then later
> > > once we have a generic mechanism for "caching the relation size" [1], we can
> > > do it for non-recovery paths.
> > > I think that will at least address the reported use case with some minimal
> > > changes.
> > >
> > > [1] -
> > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D3SSw-Ty1DFcK%3D1r
> > > U-K6GSzYzfdD4d%2BZwapdN7dTa6%3DnQ%40mail.gmail.com
>
> Isn't a relation always locked asscess-exclusively, at truncation
> time? If so, isn't even the result of lseek reliable enough?
>
Even if the relation is locked, background processes like checkpointer
can still touch the relation which might cause problems. Consider a
case where we extend the relation but didn't flush the newly added
pages. Now during truncate operation, checkpointer can still flush
those pages which can cause trouble for truncate. But, I think in the
recovery path such cases won't cause a problem.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
