| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Latch for the WAL writer - further reducing idle wake-ups. |
| Date: | 2012-05-08 23:48:40 |
| Message-ID: | CAEYLb_VW-Yjtwyy5+P2QN-V1FX0ar6Hkm296+Ae8zMrNk1csmQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9 May 2012 00:21, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes, there is some checking of flags before the potential ResetLatch()
> call, which may be acted on. The code there is almost identical to
> that of the extant bgwriter code. I was under the impression that this
> did not amount to a race, though it's rather late now, and I'm feeling
> under the weather, so I have not taken steps to verify that I have it
> right. Arguably, you'd want somebody's SetLatch call to be ignored if
Sent too early. That should be: Arguably, you'd want somebody's
SetLatch call to be ignored under the circumstances that that could
happen in both the bgwriter, and the WALWriter within my recent patch.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-05-08 23:55:04 | Re: age(xid) on hot standby |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-05-08 23:40:50 | Re: Latch for the WAL writer - further reducing idle wake-ups. |