| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: It's past time to redo the smgr API |
| Date: | 2004-02-05 23:33:56 |
| Message-ID: | 17804.1076024036@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> k, but that would be a different scenario, no? As I mentioned in my
> original, a DROP TABLE would reset its timeout to -1, meaning to close it
> and drop it on the next checkpoint interval ...
How would it do that? These structs are local to particular backends,
so there's no way for a DROP TABLE occurring in one backend to reach
over and reset the timeout in the bgwriter process. If we add
communication that lets the bgwriter know the table is being dropped,
then the problem is solved directly.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-02-05 23:54:17 | Re: It's past time to redo the smgr API |
| Previous Message | Hans-Jürgen Schönig | 2004-02-05 23:28:19 | Re: Recursive queries? |