| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing WAL Header to reduce contention during ReserveXLogInsertLocation() |
| Date: | 2018-03-29 00:50:21 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZzz_y6ZR+33d3UrXGR0fO2fQOFLwLkaPHOSpWWx42BNw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Pavan Deolasee
<pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Yeah, we should not do that. The patch surely does not intend to replay any
> more WAL than what we do today. The idea is to just use a different
> mechanism to find the prior checkpoint. But we should surely find the latest
> prior checkpoint. In the rare scenario that Tom showed, we should just throw
> an error and fix the patch if it's not doing that already.
It's not clear to me that there is any reasonable fix short of giving
up on this approach altogether. But I might be missing something.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-03-29 00:59:05 | Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-03-29 00:49:10 | Re: [HACKERS] A design for amcheck heapam verification |