From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, fazool mein <fazoolmein(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock |
Date: | 2010-10-26 15:52:38 |
Message-ID: | 1288108305-sup-6886@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Jeff Janes's message of mar oct 26 12:22:38 -0300 2010:
> I don't think that holding WALWriteLock accomplishes much. It
> prevents part of the buffer from being written out to OS/disk, and
> thus becoming eligible for being overwritten in the buffer, but the
> WALInsertLock prevents it from actually being overwritten. And what
> if the part of the buffer you want to read was already eligible for
> overwriting but not yet actually overwritten? WALWriteLock won't
> allow you to safely access it, but WALInsertLock will (assuming you
> have a safe way to identify the record in the first place). For
> either case, holding it in shared mode would be sufficient.
And horrible for performance, I imagine. Those locks are highly trafficked.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2010-10-26 16:04:17 | Re: add label to enum syntax |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-10-26 15:41:59 | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |