On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 5:18 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah. Digging further, it looks like I oversimplified things above:
> we once launched special background-worker-like processes for checkpoints,
> and there could be more than one at a time.
Thanks. I updated the commit message to mention some
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 02:36:48PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Here's a patch to remove CheckpointLock completely. For
> ProcessInterrupts() to do anything, one of the following things would
> have to be true:
>
> [...]
>
> So I don't see any problem with just ripping this out entirely, but
> I'd
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> If memory serves, the reason for the lock was that the CHECKPOINT
>> command used to run the checkpointing code directly in the calling
>> backend, so we needed it to keep more than one process from doing
>> that at once.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:25 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> If memory serves, the reason for the lock was that the CHECKPOINT
> command used to run the checkpointing code directly in the calling
> backend, so we needed it to keep more than one process from doing
> that at once. AFAICS, it's no longer
Robert Haas writes:
> Here's a patch to remove CheckpointLock completely. ...
> So I don't see any problem with just ripping this out entirely, but
> I'd like to know if anybody else does.
If memory serves, the reason for the lock was that the CHECKPOINT
command used to run the checkpointing
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:21 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, I think this lock is useless. In fact, I think it's harmful,
> because it makes large sections of the checkpointer code, basically
> all of it really, run with interrupts held off for no reason.
>
> It's not impossible that removing the
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:02 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> As per this comment, it seems to be that we don't really need this LW lock. We
> could have something else instead if we are afraid of having multiple
> checkpoints at any given time which isn't possible, btw.
Yeah, I think this lock is useless.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:22 PM Amul Sul wrote:
> I am not sure I understood your point completely. Do you mean there could be
> multiple bootstrap or standalone backends that could exist at a time and can
> perform checkpoint?
Actually, my understanding of the standalone backend was wrong
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:45 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:32 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Snip from CreateCheckPoint():
> > --
> > /*
> > * Acquire CheckpointLock to ensure only one checkpoint happens at a time.
> > * (This is just pro forma, since in the present system
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 12:45 PM Bharath Rupireddy
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:32 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> > Snip from CreateCheckPoint():
> > --
> > /*
> > * Acquire CheckpointLock to ensure only one checkpoint happens at a time.
> > * (This is just pro forma, since in the present system
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 11:32 AM Amul Sul wrote:
> Snip from CreateCheckPoint():
> --
> /*
> * Acquire CheckpointLock to ensure only one checkpoint happens at a time.
> * (This is just pro forma, since in the present system structure there is
> * only one process that is allowed to issue
Hi ALL,
Snip from CreateCheckPoint():
--
/*
* Acquire CheckpointLock to ensure only one checkpoint happens at a time.
* (This is just pro forma, since in the present system structure there is
* only one process that is allowed to issue checkpoints at any given
* time.)
*/
12 matches
Mail list logo
