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 :-(. 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. 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? 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