Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-seSLOT3UE7CtWjw5uL+8Gqgp1hnW_QgWpR-CkW_iCyig@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 7:07 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 1:34 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I thought that way because IIUC, when we are locking the database
> > tuple we are ensuring that we are calling
> > ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages() right?   And IIUC
> > ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages(), is designed such a way that it will
> > consume all the outstanding messages and that's the reason it loops
> > multiple times if it identifies that the queue is full.  And if my
> > assumption here is correct then I think it is also correct that now we
> > only need to worry about anyone generating new invalidations and that
> > is not possible in this case.
>
> Well, I don't see how that chain of logic addresses my concern about
> sinval reset.
>
> Mind you, I'm not sure there's an actual problem here, because I tried
> testing the patch with debug_discard_caches=1 and nothing failed. But
> I still don't understand WHY nothing failed.

Okay, I see what you are saying.  Yeah this looks like a problem to me
as well.  I will try to reproduce this issue.

-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Aleksander Alekseev
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove workarounds to format [u]int64's
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove workarounds to format [u]int64's