| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5) |
| Date: | 2014-04-03 23:33:12 |
| Message-ID: | 17742.1396567992@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-04-03 19:08:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> A somewhat more relevant concern is where are we going to keep the state
>> data involved in all this. Since this code is, by definition, going to be
>> called in critical sections, any solution involving internal pallocs is
>> right out.
> We actually already allocate memory in XLogInsert() :(, although only in
> the first XLogInsert() a backend does...
Ouch. I wonder if we should put an Assert(not-in-critical-section)
into MemoryContextAlloc.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-03 23:40:28 | Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5) |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-03 23:23:47 | Re: WAL format and API changes (9.5) |