| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #4879: bgwriter fails to fsync the file in recovery mode |
| Date: | 2009-06-26 04:59:34 |
| Message-ID: | 1245992374.4038.353.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, 2009-06-26 at 05:14 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 20:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > What I am thinking is that instead of the hack of clearing
> > LocalRecoveryInProgress to allow the current process to write WAL,
> > we should have a separate test function WALWriteAllowed() with a
> > state variable LocalWALWriteAllowed, and the hack should set that
> > state without playing any games with LocalRecoveryInProgress. Then
> > RecoveryInProgress() remains true during the end-of-recovery checkpoint
> > and we can condition the TruncateMultiXact and TruncateSUBTRANS calls
> > on that. Meanwhile the various places that check RecoveryInProgress
> > to decide if WAL writing is allowed should call WALWriteAllowed()
> > instead.
>
> No need.
Belay that. Yes, agree need for additional state, though think its more
like EndRecoveryIsComplete().
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-06-26 06:22:04 | Re: BUG #4879: bgwriter fails to fsync the file in recovery mode |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-06-26 04:40:45 | Re: BUG #4879: bgwriter fails to fsync the file in recovery mode |