Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux
Date: 2009-12-01 18:10:03
Message-ID: 4B15079B020000250002CE8A@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Determining whether it's still the current append target is not so
> cheap though; it would require examining shared-memory status
> which means taking a lock on that status (and it's a high-traffic
> lock already).

I haven't reviewed the internal locking techniques, so this may well
be a dumb question, but... Since we only care whether the value is
equal, and an occasional false report of equality wouldn't hurt
anything, couldn't we bypass the lock in this particular case?

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-12-01 18:12:18 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rewrite GEQO`s gimme_tree function so that it always finds a
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-12-01 18:05:47 Re: Block-level CRC checks