On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> ... I'd like to propose to change relation
>>>> extension lock management so that it works using LWLock instead.
>>> That's not a good idea because it'll make the code that executes while
>>> holding that lock noninterruptible.
>> Is that really a problem?  We typically only hold it over one kernel call,
>> which ought to be noninterruptible anyway.
> During parallel bulk load operations, I think we hold it over multiple
> kernel calls.

We do.  Also, RelationGetNumberOfBlocks() is not necessarily only one
kernel call, no?  Nor is vm_extend.

Also, it's not just the backend doing the filesystem operation that's
non-interruptible, but also any waiters, right?

Maybe this isn't a big problem, but it does seem to be that it would
be better to avoid it if we can.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to