Re: parallel restore vs. windows
От | Andrew Chernow |
---|---|
Тема | Re: parallel restore vs. windows |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 493DEE0B.1010202@esilo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: parallel restore vs. windows (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: parallel restore vs. windows
Re: parallel restore vs. windows |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Andrew Chernow wrote: >> >>>> HANDLE h = (HANDLE)_beginthreadex(NULL, 0, thread_start, arg, 0, NULL); >>> >>> This didn't give me any more joy, unfortunately. But you're right, I >>> should be using it. >>> >> >> Are these threads sharing memory, intentionally or by mistake? > > > Things they write, and things they read but might not be stable, are not > supposed to be shared. If they are it's a mistake. > Looks like the ArchiveHandle variable 'AH' and the TocEntry 'next_work_item' are not being deep copied at line 315 of your patch, where you prepare the RestoreArgs struct for the thread. Every thread is accessing and possibly updating the members of these structs that need to be deep copied. -- Andrew Chernow eSilo, LLC every bit counts http://www.esilo.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: