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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 |