Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Specifically, I propose this patch instead.
> It looks better, but leaves the door open for WAL insertions for a much
> longer period. Particularly, there's the call to CheckpointGuts(), which
> does a lot of things. Maybe I'm just too paranoid about keeping that
> sanity check as tight as possible...
Well, I'd prefer to go through the LocalSetXLogInsertAllowed/
reset LocalXLogInsertAllowed dance twice rather than have this code
calling InitXLOGAccess directly (and unconditionally, which was
even worse IMHO). But I don't actually see anything wrong with
having CheckpointGuts enabled to write WAL. I could even see that
being *necessary* in some future iteration of the system --- who's
to say that a checkpoint involves adding only one WAL entry?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2009-08-26 16:20:13|
|Subject: Re: BUG #4996: postgres.exe memory consumption keeps going up|
|Previous:||From: Craig Ringer||Date: 2009-08-26 15:38:17|
|Subject: Re: BUG #4996: postgres.exe memory consumption keeps going