| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jim Nasby <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: [HACKERS] TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", ) |
| Date: | 2005-10-31 18:13:52 |
| Message-ID: | 14263.1130782432@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Well, then what real options do we have? It seems the patch is just
> required for all branches.
I think it would be possible to fix it in a less invasive way by taking
and releasing the ControlLock an extra time in SimpleLruReadPage and
SimpleLruWritePage. What's indeterminate about that is the performance
cost. In situations where there's not a lot of SLRU I/O traffic it's
presumably negligible, but in a case like Jim's where there's evidently
a *whole* lot of traffic, it might be a killer.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-10-31 18:15:43 | Re: [HACKERS] FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-31 18:05:06 | Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", ) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-10-31 18:15:43 | Re: [HACKERS] FKs on temp tables: hard, or just omitted? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-31 18:05:06 | Re: slru.c race condition (was Re: TRAP: FailedAssertion("!((itemid)->lp_flags & 0x01)", ) |