Re: A couple of fishy-looking critical sections
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: A couple of fishy-looking critical sections |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9325.979945256@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: A couple of fishy-looking critical sections ("Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev@SECTORBASE.COM> writes: >> 3. src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c, routine CreateCheckPoint: >> does this *entire* routine need to be a critical section? Again, >> I fear a shotgun approach will mean a net decrease in reliability, >> not an improvement. How much of this code really has to be critical? > When postmaster has to create Checkpoint this routine is called from > bootstrap.c:BootstrapMain() - ie without normal initialization, so > I don't know result of elog(ERROR) in this case -:( I believe elog(ERROR) will be treated like FATAL in this case (because Warn_restart isn't set). So the checkpoint process will clean up and exit, but there wouldn't be a system-wide restart were it not for the critical section. The question that's bothering me is whether a system-wide restart is actually going to make things better, rather than worse, if the checkpoint process has a problem ... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: