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

• Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux at 2009-12-01 15:12:46 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux at 2009-12-01 19:05:19 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 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 Momjian	Date: 2009-12-01 18:05:47
	Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks