| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, revised patch |
| Date: | 2007-06-17 11:00:02 |
| Message-ID: | 46751432.2010300@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 08:51 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> Do we need to know it so exactly that we look
>>> at WALInsertLock? Maybe use info_lck to request the latest page, since
>>> that is less heavily contended and we need never wait across I/O.
>> Is there such a value available, that's protected by just info_lck? I
>> can't see one.
>
> XLogCtl->LogwrtRqst.Write
That's the Write location. checkpoint_segments is calculated against the
Insert location. In a normal OLTP scenario they would be close to each
other, but if you're doing a huge data load in a transaction; restoring
from backup for example, they could be really far apart.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-06-17 14:00:13 | wrong sql statement crashes backend |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-06-17 08:39:04 | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, revised patch |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-06-17 14:33:45 | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, revised patch |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-06-17 08:39:04 | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, revised patch |