On 9 November 2012 14:16, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> So, do we need a sinval overrun or just a sinval message to provoke >>> starvation? The former would be bad but the latter would be really, >>> really bad. IIRC the queue has 4K entries, and IIRC a single DDL >>> operation might provoke a couple of sinvals, but I'm thinking that >>> somebody would probably have to be creating >1024 temp tables a minute >>> to overrun the queue, which is very possible but not necessarily >>> common. OTOH, creating 1 temp table a minute would hit a much broader >>> swath of users. >> >> The point is moot because latches don't work that way anymore. > > One of us is confused, because IIUC Tom just fixed this this morning, > and I'm trying to figure out how many users will be affected by it, > and how seriously. Like, do we need an immediate minor release?
You asked what provokes starvation, and the answer is nothing anymore, since Tom's commit. No confusion here... -- 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
