| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Configuring BLCKSZ and XLOGSEGSZ (in 8.3) |
| Date: | 2006-12-05 20:14:39 |
| Message-ID: | 10574.1165349679@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 2006-11-27 at 18:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> [ studies code a bit more... ] I'm also wondering whether the forced
>> pg_control update at each xlog seg switch is worth its keep. Offhand
>> it seems like the checkpoint pointer is enough; why are we maintaining
>> logId/logSeg in pg_control?
> We maintain the values in shared memory to allow us to determine whether
> or not its time to checkpoint, and also to ensure that there is one and
> only one call to checkpoint. So we need to keep track of this somewhere
> and that may as well be where it already is.
Say again? AFAICT those fields are write-only; the only place we
consult them is to decide whether they need to be updated. My thought
was to remove 'em altogether.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-05 20:18:38 | Re: trappable warnings, dynamic change of minimal level for PG_RE_THROW |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2006-12-05 19:53:55 | trappable warnings, dynamic change of minimal level for PG_RE_THROW |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Lor | 2006-12-05 20:57:30 | Re: Dynamic Tracing docs |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-12-05 19:53:22 | Re: [HACKERS] Configuring BLCKSZ and XLOGSEGSZ (in 8.3) |