On 6 June 2012 20:11, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 29, 2012 08:42:43 PM Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Monday, May 28, 2012 07:11:53 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> > Andres Freund <and...@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. >> >> The assumption is already made at several other places I think. >> XLogSetAsyncXactLSN does a SetLatch and is called from critical sections; >> several signal handlers call it without any attention to the context. >> >> Requiring it to be called outside would make its usage considerably less >> convenient and I don't really see what could change that would require to >> throw non-panic errors. >> >> > 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. >> >> Patch attached. > I would like to invite some more review (+commit...) here ;). Imo this is an > annoying bug which should be fixed before next point release or beta/rc comes > out...
Moved the wakeup to a logical place outside a critical section. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
