| From: | Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance monitor signal handler |
| Date: | 2001-03-16 00:17:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20010315161710.H29888@fw.wintelcom.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> [010315 16:14] wrote:
> At 06:57 15/03/01 -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >
> > And shared memory has all the interlocking problems we want
> > to avoid.
>
> I suspect that if we keep per-backend data in a separate area, then we
> don;t need locking since there is only one writer. It does not matter if a
> reader gets an inconsistent view, the same as if you drop a few UDP packets.
No, this is completely different.
Lost data is probably better than incorrect data. Either use locks
or a copying mechanism. People will depend on the data returned
making sense.
--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net|alfred(at)freebsd(dot)org]
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Philip Warner | 2001-03-16 00:28:21 | Re: Performance monitor signal handler |
| Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2001-03-16 00:13:40 | Re: Performance monitor signal handler |