,
--
Hiroyuki YAMADA
Kokolink Corporation
yam...@kokolink.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
XLOG_HEAP2_CLEAN record.
4. Startup process tries to redo XLOG_HEAP2_CLEAN record, calls
LockBufferForCleanup() and freezes until the Xact 1 ends.
Note that with HOT pruning, we do not need VACUUM command, and most tables,
which has long history of updation, can be table A.
--
Hiroyuki YAMADA
,
--
Hiroyuki YAMADA
Kokolink Corporation
yam...@kokolink.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
problem. This is less catstrophic
but more likely to happen.
If you leave this problem, for example, any long-running transactions,
holding any cursors in whatever tables, have a possibility of freezing
whole recovery work in HotStandby node until the transaction commit.
regards,
--
Hiroyuki
Hiroyuki Yamada yam...@kokolink.net writes:
Well, I want to know whether the problem I refered to
in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01641.php
is must-fix or not.
This problem is a corollary of the deadlock problem. This is less catstrophic
but more likely to happen
,
--
Hiroyuki YAMADA
Kokolink Corporation
yam...@kokolink.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
,
--
Hiroyuki YAMADA
Kokolink Corporation
yam...@kokolink.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 19:35 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
* There is a window beween gathering lock information in
GetRunningTransactionLocks()
and writing WAL in LogAccessExclusiveLocks().
* In current lock redo algorithm, locks are released when the transaction
holding the lock
, is the problem reported in
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01324.php
fixed or deferred ?
regrards,
--
Hiroyuki YAMADA
Kokolink Corporation
yam...@kokolink.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription
On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 18:08 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
That fixes or explains all known issues, from me. Are there any other
things you know about that I haven't responded to? Do you think we have
addressed every issue, except deferred items?
I will be looking to commit to CVS later
LockBufferForCleanup() for any of the buffers
regards,
--
Hiroyuki YAMADA
Kokolink Corporation
yam...@kokolink.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
LockBufferForCleanup() for any of the buffers
regards,
--
Hiroyuki YAMADA
Kokolink Corporation
yam...@kokolink.net
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
12 matches
Mail list logo