| From: | "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Gavin M(dot) Roy" <gmr(at)myyearbook(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.3.0 Core with concurrent vacuum fulls |
| Date: | 2008-03-07 09:22:56 |
| Message-ID: | 2e78013d0803070122v5ee2a2c6l610c01699ca0c0cb@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> I think that just makes things more complex and fragile. I like
> Heikki's idea, in part because it makes the normal path and the WAL
> recovery path guaranteed to work alike. I'll attach my work-in-progress
> patch for this --- it doesn't do anything about the invalidation
> semantics problem but it does fix the critical-section-too-big problem.
>
The WIP patch looks good to me. I haven't yet tested it (will wait for the
final version). The following pointer arithmetic caught my eye though.
! nunused = (end - nowunused);
Shouldn't we typecast them to (char *) first ?
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-03-07 10:12:45 | Re: Nasty bug in heap_page_prune |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-03-07 05:57:55 | Re: Doubt in heap_release_fetch |