Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock
Date
Msg-id AANLkTi=jB9Up-GKS94JsZNHQG7+2RUt-CWDSL3-NfVYr@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock  (fazool mein <fazoolmein@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:03 AM, fazool mein <fazoolmein@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Might I suggest adopting the same technique walsender does, ie just read
>> the data back from disk?  There's a reason why we gave up trying to have
>> walsender read directly from the buffers.
>>
>
> That is exactly what I do not want to do, i.e. read from disk, as long as
> the piece of WAL is available in the buffers.

I implemented before the patch which makes walsender read WAL from the buffer
without holding neither WALInsertLock nor WALWriteLock. That might be helpful
for you. Please see the following post.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-06/msg00661.php

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die