| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Fix mdsync never-ending loop problem |
| Date: | 2007-04-12 13:29:52 |
| Message-ID: | 19188.1176384592@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Ok. Perhaps we should not use the canceled-flag but just remove the
> entry from pendingOpsTable like we used to when mdsync_in_progress isn't
> set.
I'm not thrilled about that; it seems overly intricate, and won't the
LDC patch make it mostly useless anyway (because of time-extended
checkpointing)?
> I think there's one little bug in the patch:
> 1. AbsorbFsyncRequests is called. A FORGET message is received, and an
> entry in the hash table is marked as canceled
> 2. Another relation with the same relfilenode is created. This can
> happen after OID wrap-around
> 3. RememberFsyncRequest is called for the new relation. The old entry is
> still in the hash table, marked with the canceled-flag, so it's not touched.
Good point. I was wondering what to do with an already-canceled entry,
but didn't think of that scenario. I think your fix is not quite right:
if we clear a pre-existing cancel flag then we do need to set cycle_ctr,
because this is effectively an all-new request.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bort, Paul | 2007-04-12 13:30:07 | Re: Bug about column references within subqueries used in selects |
| Previous Message | Ron | 2007-04-12 13:26:24 | Re: Slow Postgresql server |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guido Neitzer | 2007-04-12 14:08:03 | Re: Slow Postgresql server |
| Previous Message | Ron | 2007-04-12 13:26:24 | Re: Slow Postgresql server |