| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Signaling of waiting for a cleanup lock? |
| Date: | 2014-04-14 22:36:40 |
| Message-ID: | 534C62F8.4010901@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/14/14, 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> One concrete reason not to do the proposed trivial hack is that the lock
> readout views are asynchronous. Right now, if someone sees a process that
> claims to be waiting but they don't see any entry in pg_locks, they know
> they saw inconsistent state. If we add a valid state where waiting can be
> true without a pg_locks entry, they won't know what to think. I don't
> want to go there.
FWIW, I really wish we had a way to eliminate that inconsistency. It makes already difficult to debug problems even harder to deal with.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2014-04-14 22:39:02 | Re: Signaling of waiting for a cleanup lock? |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2014-04-14 22:17:18 | Re: Excessive WAL generation and related performance issue |