From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Latch for the WAL writer - further reducing idle wake-ups. |
Date: | 2012-05-08 23:40:50 |
Message-ID: | 530.1336520450@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 8 May 2012 22:35, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Now that I've actually read the patch, rather than just responding to
>> your description of it, I find myself entirely unhappy with the proposed
>> changes in the walwriter's sleep logic. You have introduced race
>> conditions (it is NOT okay to reset the latch somewhere below the top of
>> the loop)
> Yes, there is some checking of flags before the potential ResetLatch()
> call, which may be acted on. The code there is almost identical to
> that of the extant bgwriter code.
Um, yes, I noticed that shortly after sending my previous message.
I'm pretty unhappy about the current state of the bgwriter loop, too.
I rather wonder whether that coding explains the "postmaster failed to
shut down" errors that we've been seeing lately in the buildfarm.
Not noticing a shutdown signal promptly would go a long way towards
explaining that.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-05-08 23:48:40 | Re: Latch for the WAL writer - further reducing idle wake-ups. |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-05-08 23:21:58 | Re: Latch for the WAL writer - further reducing idle wake-ups. |