On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 8:50 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't understand what you mean about stunning the checkpointer, but
I just meant that, with your change, we ask the checkpointer to wait
for our signal if it reaches that code path and then while it's
snoozing we call register_dirty_segment(). I wanted to report that
I'd checked that it copes with the request queue being full, by
falling back to calling fsync() itself, which is good news because if
it instead waited for the checkpointer to drain the request queue
instead (an available option), we'd have a potential deadlock.
> here are some patches.
0001: LGTM, except in the commit message "By setting
XLOG_CHKPT_START," s/XLOG/DELAY/.
0002: LGTM
Now I wonder if we will get occasional PANIC reports from Windows
users. I might prepare one of those retry wrappers...
