Tom Lane wrote:
> Hm ... do we want an LWLock per map file, or is one lock to rule them all
> sufficient? LWLock per database seems problematic. With an HW lock there
> wouldn't be a problem with that. HW lock would allow concurrent updates of
> the map files of different DBs, but is that worth the extra cycles?
A single LWLock should be enough.
> Once the updated map file is moved into place, the relocation is effectively
> committed even if we subsequently abort the transaction. We can make that
> window pretty narrow but not remove it completely.
We could include the instructions to update the map file in the commit
record, instead of introducing a new record type, and update the map
file only *after* writing the commit record. The map file doesn't grow,
so we can be pretty confident that updating it doesn't fail (failure
would lead to PANIC).
I'm assuming the map file is fixed size, with a fixed location for each
relation, so that we can just overwrite the old file without the
create+rename dance, and not worry about torn-pages.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Matteo Beccati||Date: 2010-02-01 08:06:14|
|Subject: Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-02-01 07:40:16|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby and deadlock detection|