On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 17:17 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Tue, 2008-09-09 at 08:24 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> "Agreed"? That last restriction is a deal-breaker. > > > >> OK, I should have said *if wal_buffers are full* XLogInsert() cannot > >> advance to a new page while we are waiting to send or write. So I don't > >> think its a deal breaker. > > > > Oh, OK, that's obvious --- there's no place to put more data. > > Each WAL sender can keep at most one page locked at a time, right? So, > that should never happen if wal_buffers > 1 + n_wal_senders.
Don't understand. I am referring to the logic at the top of AdvanceXLInsertBuffer(). We would need to wait for all people reading the contents of wal_buffers. Currently, there is no page locking on the WAL buffers, though I have suggested some for increasing XLogInsert() performance. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
