Re: Avoiding adjacent checkpoint records

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Avoiding adjacent checkpoint records
Date: 2012-06-13 04:08:15
Message-ID: 605.1339560495@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Stupid question, but why are we not just setting a boolean variable in
> shared memory if we WAL-write a non-XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS record, and only
> checkpoint if that is true?

Well, (1) we are trying to avoid adding such logic to the critical
section inside XLogInsert, and (2) XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS is not the only
problematic record type, there's at least one other.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2012-06-13 04:09:11 Re: initdb and fsync
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2012-06-13 04:07:36 Re: WIP patch for Todo Item : Provide fallback_application_name in contrib/pgbench, oid2name, and dblink