Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
But I dislike copying the table entries anyway, see comment on -hackers.

Frankly the cycle id idea sounds more ugly and fragile to me. You'll need to do multiple scans of the hash table that way, starting from top every time you call AbsorbFsyncRequests (like we do know).

How so?  You just ignore entries whose cycleid is too large.  You'd have
to be careful about wraparound in the comparisons, but that's not hard
to deal with.  Also, AFAICS you still have the retry problem (and an
even bigger memory leak problem) with this coding --- the "to-do list"
doesn't eliminate the issue of correct handling of a failure.

You have to start the hash_seq_search from scratch after each call to AbsorbFsyncRequests because it can remove entries, including the one the scan is stopped on.

I think the failure handling is correct in the "to-do list" approach, when an entry is read from the list, it's checked that the entry hasn't been removed from the hash table. Actually there was a bug in the original LDC patch in the failure handling: it replaced the per-entry failures-counter with a local retry_counter variable, but it wasn't cleared after a successful write which would lead to bogus ERRORs when multiple relations are dropped during the mdsync. I kept the original per-entry counter, though the local variable approach could be made to work.

The memory leak obviously needs to be fixed, but that's just a matter of adding a pfree.

Ok, will do that. Or would you like to just take over from here?

No, I'm up to my ears in varlena.  You're the one in a position to test
this, anyway.


  Heikki Linnakangas

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
      choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to