"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Yes, the patch is wrong as-is because it may lose uncompleted fsyncs.
> But I think that we could just add the AbsorbFsyncRequests call in the
> fsync loop and not worry about trying to avoid doing extra fsyncs.
> Another possibility is to make the copied list as in the patch, but
> HASH_REMOVE an entry only after doing the fsync successfully --- as long
> as you don't AbsorbFsyncRequests between doing the fsync and removing
> the entry, you aren't risking missing a necessary fsync.  I'm
> unconvinced that this is worth the trouble, however.

Maybe the take a copied list is safer. I got a little afraid of doing 
seqscan hash while doing HASH_ENTER at the same time. Do we have this kind 
of hash usage somewhere?


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to