Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux
Date: 2009-12-01 18:10:03
Message-ID: 4B15079B020000250002CE8A@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
 
> Determining whether it's still the current append target is not so
> cheap though; it would require examining shared-memory status
> which means taking a lock on that status (and it's a high-traffic
> lock already).
 
I haven't reviewed the internal locking techniques, so this may well
be a dumb question, but...  Since we only care whether the value is
equal, and an occasional false report of equality wouldn't hurt
anything, couldn't we bypass the lock in this particular case?
 
-Kevin

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-12-01 18:12:18
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rewrite GEQO`s gimme_tree function so that it always finds a
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2009-12-01 18:05:47
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group