Re: Count backend self-sync calls

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Count backend self-sync calls
Date: 2010-11-15 01:31:42
Message-ID: AANLkTimOVcjatpEf=W_oGCJhEXr_Z_MbrJ_yrFCuG5JY@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> It might be even better to mention that the reason why we couldn't
>> forward the fsync request is that the fsync request queue is full.
>> I'm not sure exactly how to phrase that.  I thought about:
>
>> fsync request queue is full
>
>> But that seems not to answer the "so what" question.  There is an
>> example like this in the docs:
>
>> could not forward fsync request (fsync request queue is full)
>
>> ...but I'm not sure I like that.
>
> Well, that example is meant to cover cases where you have to assemble a
> couple of independently created phrases.  In this case I'd suggest
>        could not forward fsync request because request queue is full

Sounds good to me.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-11-15 02:09:22 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improved parallel make support
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-11-15 01:31:09 Re: Count backend self-sync calls