Re: WalSndWakeup() and synchronous_commit=off

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: WalSndWakeup() and synchronous_commit=off
Date: 2012-05-11 17:20:26
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob81D2Z0z5gZRC3uYJ7Eo1a-3oaiO0oK3Tu2Ki+MWxsMg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Calling WalSndWakeup() while WALWriteLock is being held might cause another
> performance degradation. No?

That definitely doesn't seem ideal - a lot of things can pile up
behind WALWriteLock. I'm not sure how big a problem it would be in
practice, but we generally make a practice of avoiding sending signals
while holding LWLocks whenever possible...

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-05-11 17:28:25 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Ensure age() returns a stable value rather than the latest value
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-05-11 17:19:15 Re: PL/perl elog(ERROR) Does not Abort Transaction