Re: Re: We have got a serious problem with pg_clog/WAL synchronization
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: We have got a serious problem with pg_clog/WAL synchronization |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 182.1092330826@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Why hash indexes suck (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: We have got a serious problem with pg_clog/WAL synchronization
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Kenneth Marshall <ktm@is.rice.edu> writes: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:58:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> How would a read-only action work to block out the checkpoint? > The latch+version number is use by the checkpoint process. The > other processes can do a read of the latch to determine if it has > been set. This does not cause a cache invalidation hit. If the > latch is set, the competing processes read until it has been > cleared and the version updated. This makes the general case of > no checkpoint not incur a write and the consequent cache-line > invalidation and reload by all processors on an SMP system. Except that reading the latch and finding it clear offers no guarantee that a checkpoint isn't about to start. The problem is that we are performing two separate actions (write a COMMIT xlog record and update transaction status in clog) and we have to prevent a checkpoint from starting in between those actions. I don't see that there's any way to do that with a read-only latch. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: