| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Heap truncation without AccessExclusiveLock (9.4) |
| Date: | 2013-05-23 03:04:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaVgZxr3T1HdHQPqVuzbqfVV4H4ZpacnC6Fixo12HLeGg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>> It shouldn't be difficult to restrict the set of backends that have to
>> be signaled to those that have the relation open. You could have a
>> special kind of catchup signal that means "catch yourself up, but
>> don't chain"
>
> What does "chain" mean above?
Normally, when sinval catchup is needed, we signal the backend that is
furthest behind. After catching up, it signals the backend that is
next-furthest behind, which in turns catches up and signals the next
laggard, and so forth.
> Hmm. The sinval message makes sure that when a backend locks a relation, it
> will see the latest value, because of the AcceptInvalidationMessages call in
> LockRelation. If there is no sinval message, you'd need to always check the
> shared memory area when you lock a relation.
The latest value of what?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-05-23 03:05:40 | Re: MVCC catalog access |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-05-23 03:02:18 | Re: MVCC catalog access |