Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote
> >> AbsorbFsyncRequests will be called during the fsync loop in my patch,
> >> so new files might be added to pendingOpsTable and they will be removed
> >> from the table *before* writing the pages belonging to them.
> I think this fear is incorrect. At the time ForwardFsyncRequest is
> called, the backend must *already* have done whatever write it is
> concerned about fsync'ing.
Oops, I was wrong. Also, I see that there is no necessity for fearing
endless loops because hash-seqscan and HASH_ENTER don't conflict.
Attached is a revised patch. It became very simple, but I worry that
one magic number (BUFFERS_PER_ABSORB) is still left.
NTT Cyber Space Laboratories
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Greg Sabino Mullane||Date: 2006-01-16 02:19:28|
|Subject: New pg_dump options: exclude tables/schemas, multiple all,wildcards|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-01-16 01:00:05|
|Subject: Re: pgxs/windows |