Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
Date: 2020-09-01 14:05:10
Message-ID: CA+hUKG+9NUUbdQqFNCz2SKBdyCCD7SQwJy-Y6_PZmCnc+h79ig@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:14 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> from the archive

Ahh, so perhaps that's the key.

> I've tested this applied on 6ca547cf75ef6e922476c51a3fb5e253eef5f1b6,
> and the failure seems fairly similar to what I reported before, except
> that now it happened right at the very beginning.

Thanks, will see if I can work out why. My newer version probably has
the same problem.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2020-09-01 14:18:26 Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2020-09-01 13:50:13 Re: Online checksums patch - once again