|From:||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com, david(at)pgmasters(dot)net, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
At Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:56:06 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote in <20170411(dot)095606(dot)245908357(dot)horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
> Hello, thank you for looking this.
> At Fri, 07 Apr 2017 20:38:35 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote in <27309(dot)1491611915(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > > Interesting. I wonder if it's possible that a relcache invalidation
> > > would cause these values to get lost for some reason, because that would
> > > be dangerous.
> > > I suppose the rationale is that this shouldn't happen because any
> > > operation that does things this way must hold an exclusive lock on the
> > > relation. But that doesn't guarantee that the relcache entry is
> > > completely stable,
> > It ABSOLUTELY is not safe. Relcache flushes can happen regardless of
> > how strong a lock you hold.
> > regards, tom lane
> Ugh. Yes, relcache invalidation happens anytime and it resets the
> added values. pg_stat_info deceived me that it can store
> transient values. But I came up with another thought.
> The reason I proposed it was I thought that hash_search for every
> buffer is not good. Instead, like pg_stat_info, we can link the
buffer => buffer modification
> pending-sync hash entry to Relation. This greately reduces the
> frequency of hash-searching.
> I'll post new patch in this way soon.
Here it is.
- Relation has new members no_pending_sync and pending_sync that
works as instant cache of an entry in pendingSync hash.
- Commit-time synchronizing is restored as Michael's patch.
- If relfilenode is replaced, pending_sync for the old node is
removed. Anyway this is ignored on abort and meaningless on
- TAP test is renamed to 012 since some new files have been added.
Accessing pending sync hash occured on every calling of
HeapNeedsWAL() (per insertion/update/freeze of a tuple) if any of
accessing relations has pending sync. Almost of them are
eliminated as the result.
NTT Open Source Software Center
|Next Message||Kyotaro HORIGUCHI||2017-04-11 08:38:12||Re: WAL logging problem in 9.4.3?|
|Previous Message||Magnus Hagander||2017-04-11 08:05:27||Re: [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable.|