| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "'Lamar Owen'" <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Beta 6 Regression results on Redat 7.0. |
| Date: | 2001-03-20 23:44:02 |
| Message-ID: | 13967.985131842@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
> Hmm, concurrent checkpoint? Probably we could simplify dirty test
> in ByfferSync() - ie test bufHdr->cntxDirty without holding
> shlock (and pin!) on buffer: should be good as long as we set
> cntxDirty flag *before* XLogInsert in access methods. Have to
> look more...
Yes, I'm wondering if some other backend is trying to write/flush
the buffer (maybe as part of a checkpoint, maybe not). But seems
like we should have seen this before, if so; that's not a low-
probability scenario, particularly with just 64 buffers...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2001-03-20 23:44:10 | Re: Fw: [vorbis-dev] ogg123: shared memory by mmap() |
| Previous Message | Joel Burton | 2001-03-20 23:39:49 | pg_inherits: addt'l info |