Re: Re: We have got a serious problem with pg_clog/WAL synchronization
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Re: We have got a serious problem with pg_clog/WAL synchronization |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 182.1092330826@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Why hash indexes suck (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Re: We have got a serious problem with pg_clog/WAL synchronization
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Kenneth Marshall <ktm@is.rice.edu> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:58:56AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> How would a read-only action work to block out the checkpoint?
> The latch+version number is use by the checkpoint process. The
> other processes can do a read of the latch to determine if it has
> been set. This does not cause a cache invalidation hit. If the
> latch is set, the competing processes read until it has been
> cleared and the version updated. This makes the general case of
> no checkpoint not incur a write and the consequent cache-line
> invalidation and reload by all processors on an SMP system.
Except that reading the latch and finding it clear offers no guarantee
that a checkpoint isn't about to start. The problem is that we are
performing two separate actions (write a COMMIT xlog record and update
transaction status in clog) and we have to prevent a checkpoint from
starting in between those actions. I don't see that there's any way to
do that with a read-only latch.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: