Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux
Date
Msg-id 4B15079B020000250002CE8A@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Deleted WAL files held open by backends in Linux  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Determining whether it's still the current append target is not so
> cheap though; it would require examining shared-memory status
> which means taking a lock on that status (and it's a high-traffic
> lock already).
I haven't reviewed the internal locking techniques, so this may well
be a dumb question, but...  Since we only care whether the value is
equal, and an occasional false report of equality wouldn't hurt
anything, couldn't we bypass the lock in this particular case?
-Kevin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Rewrite GEQO`s gimme_tree function so that it always finds a