Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Checkpointer starts before bgwriter to avoid missing fsync reque
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Checkpointer starts before bgwriter to avoid missing fsync reque |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23635.1338557357@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Checkpointer starts before bgwriter to avoid missing fsync reque (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Checkpointer starts before
bgwriter to avoid missing fsync reque
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > On 1 June 2012 08:55, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> On 01.06.2012 10:28, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> Checkpointer starts before bgwriter to avoid missing fsync requests. >>> Noted while testing Hot Standby startup. >> The processes are just forked and it will take some time for them to >> initialize. Isn't there still a race condition, where the bgwriter starts up >> first, and you still miss fsync requests? > Possibly... > How do we handle that same situation if the check pointer crashes? Surely that commit is useless. Fsync requests go into a queue in shared memory, which had better have been set up by the postmaster. There is no requirement that the receiving process exist before somebody can put a request into the queue. If the queue overflows, the requestor has to take care of the fsync itself, but that is independent of whether the checkpointer is running yet. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: