| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3 |
| Date: | 2007-06-21 12:33:35 |
| Message-ID: | 467A701F.1090403@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> In fact, I think there's a small race condition in CVS HEAD:
>
> Yeah, probably --- the original no-locking design didn't have any side
> flags. The reason you need the lock is for a backend to be sure that
> a newly-started checkpoint is using its requested flags. But the
> detection of checkpoint termination is still the same.
Actually, the race condition I outlined isn't related to the flags. It's
possible because RequestCheckpoint doesn't guarantee that a checkpoint
is performed when there's been no WAL activity since last one.
I did use a new force-flag to fix it, but I'm sure there is other ways.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-21 13:52:54 | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3 |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-06-21 08:32:52 | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, take 3 |