From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: parallel restore fixes |
Date: | 2009-03-10 02:09:07 |
Message-ID: | 19822.1236650947@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> How early is early? The proposed call sites for init_dump_utils seem
>> already long past the point where any libc-level infrastructure would
>> think it is "initialization" time.
> Well, I think at least it needs to be done where other threads won't be
> calling it at the same time.
Oh, I see, ye olde race condition. Still, it seems like a bad idea
to expect that we will catch every program that might call fmtId;
as Alvaro notes, that's all over our client-side code.
How about this: by default, fmtId uses the same logic as now (one static
PQExpBuffer). If told to by a call of init_parallel_dump_utils(), which
need only be called by pg_restore during its startup, then it switches to
using per-thread storage. init_parallel_dump_utils can be the place
that calls TlsAlloc. This is almost the same as what you suggested a
couple messages back, but perhaps a bit clearer as to what's going on;
and it definitely cuts the number of places we need to touch.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jaime Casanova | 2009-03-10 03:24:53 | Re: Updates of SE-PostgreSQL 8.4devel patches (r1704) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-03-10 01:57:27 | Re: Sampling Profler for Postgres |