From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
---|---|
To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Stuck spins in current |
Date: | 2001-03-16 23:16:30 |
Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A234D332C@sectorbase1.sectorbase.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> >> Got it at spin.c:156 with 50 clients doing inserts into
> >> 50 tables (int4, text[1-256 bytes]).
> >> -B 16384, -wal_buffers=256 (with default others wal params).
>
> > SpinAcquire() ... but on which lock?
>
> After a little bit of thought I'll bet it's ControlFileLockId.
I see "XLogWrite: new log file created..." in postmaster' log -
backend writes this after releasing ControlFileLockId.
> Likely we shouldn't be using a spinlock at all for that, but the
> short-term solution might be a longer timeout for this
> particular lock.
> Alternatively, could we avoid holding that lock while initializing a
> new log segment?
How to synchronize with checkpoint-er if wal_files > 0?
And you know - I've run same tests on ~ Mar 9 snapshot
without any problems.
Vadim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-16 23:25:07 | Re: Stuck spins in current |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-16 23:00:42 | Re: Performance monitor signal handler |