| 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>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: WalSndWakeup() and synchronous_commit=off | 
| Date: | 2012-05-11 18:45:23 | 
| Message-ID: | 11171.1336761923@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Its the only place though which knows whether its actually sensible to wakeup 
> the walsender. We could make it return whether it wrote anything and do the 
> wakeup at the callers. I count 4 different callsites which would be an 
> annoying duplication but I don't really see anything better right now.
Another point here is that XLogWrite is not only normally called with
the lock held, but inside a critical section.  I see no reason to take
the risk of doing signal sending inside critical sections.
BTW, a depressingly large fraction of the existing calls to WalSndWakeup
are also inside critical sections, generally for no good reason that I
can see.  For example, in EndPrepare(), why was the call placed where
it is and not down beside SyncRepWaitForLSN?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-05-11 20:45:42 | Re: WalSndWakeup() and synchronous_commit=off | 
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-05-11 18:40:40 | Re: WalSndWakeup() and synchronous_commit=off |