Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Actually, after thinking about this some more, I realize that this code > >> has got a significantly bigger problem than just whether it will respond > >> to CANCEL promptly. > > > Err, that problem was exactly why I added the interrupt holdoff in > > there, so if you've got a better/more invasive solution, it's very > > welcome. > > Well, that's a pretty incomplete solution :-(.
Yeah, we were well aware of that :-) It solved our problem (which was related to interrupts from autovac) > Maybe we should do > something about this. There wasn't any obvious solution before, > but now that we have the nontransactional smgr-level sinval messages > being sent on drops and truncates, it seems like tying rd_targblock > clearing to those would fix the problem. Hmm, sounds good, though I confess not having heard about nontransactional sinval messages before. > The easiest way to do that > would involve moving rd_targblock down to the SMgrRelation struct. > Probably rd_fsm_nblocks and rd_vm_nblocks too. Comments? Can't say it doesn't look like a modularity violation from here -- insertion target block doesn't really belong into smgr, does it? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers