On 28.03.2013 01:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 27 March 2013 20:40, Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>>> While looking at bug #7969, it occurred to me that it would be nice if we
>>> could catch resource leaks in WAL redo routines better. It would be useful
>>> during development, to catch bugs earlier, and it could've turned that
>>> replay-stopping error into a warning.
>> I'm inclined to think that the overhead isn't worth the trouble. This
>> is the only bug of its type we had in recent years.
> I agree that checking for resource leaks after each WAL record seems
> too expensive compared to what we'd get for it. But perhaps it's worth
> making a check every so often, like at restartpoints?
That sounds very seldom. How about making it an assertion to check after
every record? I guess I'll have to do some testing to see how expensive
it really is.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2013-03-28 15:07:08|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Allow external recovery_config_directory|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2013-03-28 14:52:14|
|Subject: Re: [sepgsql 1/3] add name qualified creation label|