From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: A couple of fishy-looking critical sections |
Date: | 2001-01-19 23:00:56 |
Message-ID: | 9325.979945256@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
>> 3. src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c, routine CreateCheckPoint:
>> does this *entire* routine need to be a critical section? Again,
>> I fear a shotgun approach will mean a net decrease in reliability,
>> not an improvement. How much of this code really has to be critical?
> When postmaster has to create Checkpoint this routine is called from
> bootstrap.c:BootstrapMain() - ie without normal initialization, so
> I don't know result of elog(ERROR) in this case -:(
I believe elog(ERROR) will be treated like FATAL in this case (because
Warn_restart isn't set). So the checkpoint process will clean up and
exit, but there wouldn't be a system-wide restart were it not for the
critical section.
The question that's bothering me is whether a system-wide restart is
actually going to make things better, rather than worse, if the
checkpoint process has a problem ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-01-19 23:24:15 | Re: AW: AW: AW: Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-01-19 22:54:48 | Re: Bit strings |