Re: Hot Standby: too many KnownAssignedXids
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Hot Standby: too many KnownAssignedXids |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4CF7839E.6050505@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Hot Standby: too many KnownAssignedXids (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Hot Standby: too many KnownAssignedXids
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 02.12.2010 13:25, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 12:41 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> On 02.12.2010 11:02, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> The cause of the issue is that replay starts at one LSN and there is a >>> delay until the RunningXacts WAL record occurs. If there was no delay, >>> there would be no issue at all. In CreateCheckpoint() we start by >>> grabbing the WAInsertLock and later recording that pointer as part of >>> the checkpoint record. My proposal is to replace the "grab the lock" >>> code with the insert of the RunningXacts WAL record (when wal_level >>> set), so that recovery always starts with that record type. >> >> Oh, interesting idea. But AFAICS closing the gap between acquiring the >> running-xacts snapshot and writing it to the log is sufficient, I don't >> see what moving the running-xacts record buys us. Does it allow some >> further simplifications somewhere? > > Your patch is quite long and you do a lot more than just alter the > locking. I don't think we need those changes at all and especially would > not wish to backpatch that. Most of the changes to procarray.c were about removing code that's no longer necessary when we close the gap between acquiring and writing the running-xacts WAL record. You can leave it as it is as a historical curiosity, but I'd prefer to simplify it, given that we now know that it doesn't actually work correctly if the gap is not closed. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: