Re: win32 _dosmaperr()
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: win32 _dosmaperr() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20428.1123961668@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: win32 _dosmaperr() (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Qingqing Zhou wrote: >> Things could get worse because the whole database cluster may stop working >> and waiting for the buffer the bgwriter is working on, but bgwriter is >> waiting for (by the deadloop in pgunlink) those postgres'es to move on (so >> that they could close the problematic xlog segment), which is a deadlock. I think that analysis is bogus. The bgwriter only tries to unlink xlog segments during post-checkpoint cleanup, at which point it isn't holding any buffer locks. Likewise, while backends might wait trying to remove a table file because the bgwriter has the file open, in that state they aren't blocking the bgwriter either. In the latter case, the backends will have to wait till the bgwriter closes the file, which it'll do not later than the next checkpoint. I wonder whether the complaints are coming from people who don't know about that, and didn't wait long enough? There could be a deadlock if a backend is holding open an old xlog segment while it executes a CHECKPOINT command, because then it'll wait for the bgwriter, and the bgwriter might think it could remove the xlog file during the checkpoint. Another form could only happen between two backends: A is trying to unlink file F, which backend B has open, and then for some unrelated reason B has to wait for a lock held by A. The bgwriter doesn't take nor wait for locks so this doesn't apply to it. But none of this should be happening because we're supposedly always opening all these files with the magic sharing flag. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: