Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun jun 06 12:10:24 -0400 2011:
>> Yeah, I wasn't that thrilled with the suggestion either. But we can't
>> just have backends constantly closing every open FD they hold, or
>> performance will suffer. I don't see any very good place to do this...
> How about doing something on an sinval message for pg_database?
> That doesn't solve the WAL problem Kevin found, of course ...
Hmm ... that would help for the specific scenario of dropped databases,
but we've also heard complaints about narrower cases such as a single
dropped table.
A bigger issue is that I don't believe it's very practical to scan the
FD array looking for files associated with a particular database (or
table). They aren't labeled that way, and parsing the file path to
find out the info seems pretty grotty.
On reflection I think this behavior is probably limited to the case
where we've done what we used to call a "blind write" of a block that
is unrelated to our database or tables. For normal SQL-driven accesses,
there's a relcache entry, and flushing of that entry will lead to
closure of associated files. I wonder whether we should go back to
forcibly closing the FD after a blind write. This would suck if a
backend had to do many dirty-buffer flushes for the same relation,
but hopefully the bgwriter is doing most of those. We'd want to make
sure such forced closure *doesn't* occur in the bgwriter. (If memory
serves, it has a checkpoint-driven closure mechanism instead.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
