| From: | Andrew Chernow <ac(at)esilo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel restore vs. windows |
| Date: | 2008-12-09 04:09:48 |
| Message-ID: | 493DEF8C.2030001@esilo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>
>>> Are these threads sharing memory, intentionally or by mistake?
>>
>>
>> Things they write, and things they read but might not be stable, are
>> not supposed to be shared. If they are it's a mistake.
>>
>
> Looks like the ArchiveHandle variable 'AH' and the TocEntry
> 'next_work_item' are not being deep copied at line 315 of your patch,
> where you prepare the RestoreArgs struct for the thread. Every thread
> is accessing and possibly updating the members of these structs that
> need to be deep copied.
>
Forgot something, the prestore function leaks the RestoreArgs struct.
--
Andrew Chernow
eSilo, LLC
every bit counts
http://www.esilo.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2008-12-09 04:31:05 | operator does not exist: smallint <> smallint[] |
| Previous Message | Andrew Chernow | 2008-12-09 04:03:23 | Re: parallel restore vs. windows |