Re: WalSndWakeup() and synchronous_commit=off - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: WalSndWakeup() and synchronous_commit=off
Date
Msg-id 8404.1338225113@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WalSndWakeup() and synchronous_commit=off  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: WalSndWakeup() and synchronous_commit=off
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Does anybody have a better idea than to either call WalSndWakeup() at 
> essentially the wrong places or calling it inside a critical section?

> Tom, what danger do you see from calling it in a critical section?

My concern was basically that it might throw an error.  Looking at the
current implementation of SetLatch, it seems that's not possible, but
I wonder whether we want to lock ourselves into that assumption.

Still, if the alternatives are worse, maybe that's the best answer.
If we do that, though, let's add comments to WalSndWakeup and SetLatch
mentioning that they mustn't throw error.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Karl Denninger
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Attempting to do a rolling move to 9.2Beta (as a slave) fails
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: How could we make it simple to access the log as a table?