From: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
Subject: | Re: Fix overflow of bgwriter's request queue |
Date: | 2006-01-16 02:00:33 |
Message-ID: | 20060116095906.4BD5.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@lab.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote
> >> AbsorbFsyncRequests will be called during the fsync loop in my patch,
> >> so new files might be added to pendingOpsTable and they will be removed
> >> from the table *before* writing the pages belonging to them.
>
> I think this fear is incorrect. At the time ForwardFsyncRequest is
> called, the backend must *already* have done whatever write it is
> concerned about fsync'ing.
Oops, I was wrong. Also, I see that there is no necessity for fearing
endless loops because hash-seqscan and HASH_ENTER don't conflict.
Attached is a revised patch. It became very simple, but I worry that
one magic number (BUFFERS_PER_ABSORB) is still left.
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Cyber Space Laboratories
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
bgwriter-requests-queue-overflow-3.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2006-01-16 02:19:28 | New pg_dump options: exclude tables/schemas, multiple all, wildcards |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-16 01:00:05 | Re: pgxs/windows |