"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> 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?
Perhaps, if you didn't mind sometimes getting a wrong answer.
I guess the cost of that would be pretty small in this particular
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Aidan Van Dyk||Date: 2009-12-01 19:06:32|
|Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-12-01 18:58:35|
|Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks |