From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hot Standby on git |
Date: | 2009-10-09 17:50:31 |
Message-ID: | 4ACF77E7.6040603@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> [ scratches head ... ] Why is hot standby messing with this sort of
>>> thing at all? It sounds like a performance optimization that should
>>> be considered separately, and *later*.
>> Yeah, I too considered just ripping it out. Simon is worried that
>> locking all the lock partitions and scanning the locks table can take a
>> long time. We do that in the master, while holding both ProcArrayLock
>> and XidGenLock in exclusive mode (hmm, why is shared not enough?), so
>> there is some grounds for worry. OTOH, it's only done once per checkpoint.
>
> I could live with ripping it out, but what we have now doesn't make
> sense, to me.
Ok, let's just rip it out for now.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-10-09 17:56:28 | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-10-09 17:49:25 | Re: Hot Standby on git |