From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Fix mdsync never-ending loop problem |
Date: | 2007-04-11 07:19:24 |
Message-ID: | 461C8BFC.6000204@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Actually, on second look I think the key idea here is Takahiro-san's
>> introduction of a cancellation flag in the hashtable entries, to
>> replace the cases where AbsorbFsyncRequests can try to delete entries.
>> What that means is mdsync() doesn't need an outer retry loop at all:
>
> I fooled around with this idea and came up with the attached patch.
> It seems to do what's intended but could do with more eyeballs and
> testing before committing. Comments please?
I'm traveling today, but I'll take a closer look at it tomorrow morning.
My first thought is that the cycle_ctr just adds extra complexity. The
canceled-flag really is the key in Takahiro-san's patch, so we don't
need the cycle_ctr anymore.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacky Leng | 2007-04-11 07:35:02 | Why need XLogReadBuffer have the paramter "init"? |
Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2007-04-11 07:09:58 | Re: Question about SHM_QUEUE |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2007-04-11 08:13:43 | Re: [HACKERS] CIC and deadlocks |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-04-11 07:16:17 | Re: Table function support |