From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Issue in GIN fast-insert: XLogBeginInsert + Read/LockBuffer ordering |
Date: | 2022-10-25 07:37:08 |
Message-ID: | 20221025073708.jpqiorm2neo34s6z@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Oct-25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 02:22:16PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> I confess I don't understand why is it important that XLogBeginInsert is
> >> called inside the critical section. It seems to me that that part is
> >> only a side-effect of having to acquire the buffer locks in the critical
> >> section. Right?
>
> > Yeah, you are right that it would not matter for XLogBeginInsert(),
> > though I'd like to think that this is a good practice on consistency
> > grounds with anywhere else, and we respect what's documented in the
> > README.
>
> Yeah --- it's documented that way, and there doesn't seem to be
> a good reason not to honor that here.
Okay, so if we follow this argument, then the logical conclusion is that
this *should* be backpatched, after all.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
Maybe there's lots of data loss but the records of data loss are also lost.
(Lincoln Yeoh)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-10-25 07:37:12 | Re: fixing typo in comment for restriction_is_or_clause |
Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-10-25 07:08:59 | Re: Allow file inclusion in pg_hba and pg_ident files |