On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 01:16:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Uh, was this ever addressed? I don't see the patch applied or the code
> > in this area modified.
>
> This patch as-is would surely be disastrous: having LockAcquire
> try to open the relcache entry for the
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Uh, was this ever addressed? I don't see the patch applied or the code
> in this area modified.
This patch as-is would surely be disastrous: having LockAcquire
try to open the relcache entry for the thing we're trying to lock
is going to be circular in at least some
On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 11:49 AM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Uh, was this ever addressed? I don't see the patch applied or the code
> in this area modified.
I never saw this email originally, but I don't think I believe
Laurenz's argument. Are all AEL-requiring operations on unlogged
tables safe to
Uh, was this ever addressed? I don't see the patch applied or the code
in this area modified.
---
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 04:33:11PM +0200, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> While looking at this:
>
While looking at this:
https://stackoverflow.com/q/50413623/6464308
I realized that "LOCK TABLE " puts a
Standby/LOCK into the WAL stream, which causes a log flush
at COMMIT time.
That hurts performance, and I doubt that it is necessary.
At any rate, DROP TABLE on an unlogged table logs nothing.
