From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |
Date: | 2014-09-11 13:47:55 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JqaWDjJwyNrdzZGNthuaKgsXYbaJOTBCY6OjmCv+JjLQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> > > We really need a more centralized way to handle error cleanup in
> > > auxiliary processes. The current state of affairs is really pretty
> > > helter-skelter. But for this patch, I think we should aim to mimic
> > > the existing style, as ugly as it is. I'm not sure whether Amit's got
> > > the logic correct, though: I'd agree LWLockReleaseAll(), at a minimum,
> > > is probably a good idea.
> >
> > Code related to bgreclaimer logic itself doesn't take any LWLock, do
> > you suspect the same might be required due to some Signal/Interrupt
> > handling?
>
> I suspect it might creep in at some point at some unrelated place. Which
> will only ever break in production scenarios. Say, a lwlock in in config
> file processing.
Yeah, I suspected the same and checked that path, but couldn't find but
may be in some path it is there as the code has many flows.
> I seem to recall somebody seing a version of a patching
> adding a lwlock there... :). Or a logging hook. Or ...
>
> The savings from not doing LWLockReleaseAll() are nonexistant, so ...
Okay, I shall add it in next version of patch and mention in comments
the reasons quoted by you.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-11 13:48:10 | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |
Previous Message | Mitsumasa KONDO | 2014-09-11 13:33:32 | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |