From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Why does VACUUM FULL bother locking pages? |
Date: | 2005-09-17 04:59:24 |
Message-ID: | 4897.1126933164@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> So, the only callers of both has already acquired appropiate locks at
> the relation level -- nobody is going to be modifying the blocks while
> they proceed. So why bother locking the pages at all? Is there a
> reason or is this an historical accident?
No, because operations such as checkpointing and bgwriter will feel free
to write out pages that aren't exclusive-locked; they don't try to get
a lock at the table level. Failing to lock the buffer would risk
allowing an invalid page state to be written to disk --- which, if we
then crashed before writing the WAL record for the vacuum operation,
would represent unrecoverable corruption.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-17 05:40:28 | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |
Previous Message | Gavin Sherry | 2005-09-17 04:41:12 | Re: Spinlocks, yet again: analysis and proposed patches |