Re: bgwriter stats

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PGSQL-Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: bgwriter stats
Date: 2007-03-19 22:39:28
Message-ID: 18235.1174343968@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> Neil Conway wrote:
>> I don't think that's the right attitude to take, at all. Why not just
>> use a lock? It's not like the overhead will be noticeable.

> Probably, but none of the other code appears to take a lock out on it :)

Huh? It doesn't use a lock for touching the checkpoint counters, but
that's OK because they're sig_atomic_t.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Darcy Buskermolen 2007-03-20 00:51:05 Re: bgwriter stats
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-03-19 22:32:12 Re: bgwriter stats