On 11/17/2010 04:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm afraid that any such change would trade a visible, safe failure > mechanism (no avworker) for invisible, impossible-to-debug data > corruption scenarios (due to failure to reset some bit of cached state). > It certainly won't give me any warm fuzzy feeling that I can trust > autovacuum.
Well, Alvaro doesn't quite seem have a warm fuzzy feeling with the status quo, either. And I can certainly understand his concerns. But yes, the os-level process separation and cache state reset guarantee that an exit() / fork() pair provides is hard to match up against in user space. So, Alvaro's argument for robustness only stands under the assumption that we can achieve a perfect cache state reset mechanism. Now, how feasible is that? Are there any kind of tools that could help us check? Regards Markus Wanner -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
