On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:03 AM, fazool mein wrote:
>
>> Might I suggest adopting the same technique walsender does, ie just read
>> the data back from disk? There's a reason why we gave up trying to have
>> walsender read directly from the buffers.
>>
>
> That is exactly what I do not want to do
Excerpts from Markus Wanner's message of mié oct 27 11:44:20 -0300 2010:
> On 10/26/2010 05:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > And horrible for performance, I imagine. Those locks are highly trafficked.
>
> Note, however, that offloading this to the file-system just moves
> congestion there. So we
On 10/26/2010 05:52 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> And horrible for performance, I imagine. Those locks are highly trafficked.
Note, however, that offloading this to the file-system just moves
congestion there. So we are effectively saying that we expect
filesystems to do a better job (in that aspec
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> I agree that the standby might get ahead, but this doesn't necessarily
>> lead to database corruption. Here, the interesting case is what happens
>> when the primary fails, which can lead to *either* of the following two
>> cases:
>> 1) The
> I agree that the standby might get ahead, but this doesn't necessarily
> lead to database corruption. Here, the interesting case is what happens
> when the primary fails, which can lead to *either* of the following two
> cases:
> 1) The standby, due to some triggering mechanism, becomes the new
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:57 PM, fazool mein wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Can you please describe why
>> >> walsender reading directly from the buffers was given up? To avoid a
>> >>
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
> >
> >> Can you please describe why
> >> walsender reading directly from the buffers was given up? To avoid a lot
> >> of
> >> locking?
> >
> > To avoid locking yes, and complexit
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 26.10.2010 21:03, fazool mein wrote:
>>>
>>> Might I suggest adopting the same technique walsender does, ie just read
>>> the data back from disk? There's a reason why we gave up trying to have
>>> walsender read directly from the bu
On 26.10.2010 21:03, fazool mein wrote:
Might I suggest adopting the same technique walsender does, ie just read
the data back from disk? There's a reason why we gave up trying to have
walsender read directly from the buffers.
That is exactly what I do not want to do, i.e. read from disk, as l
> Might I suggest adopting the same technique walsender does, ie just read
> the data back from disk? There's a reason why we gave up trying to have
> walsender read directly from the buffers.
>
>
That is exactly what I do not want to do, i.e. read from disk, as long as
the piece of WAL is availab
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Excerpts from Jeff Janes's message of mar oct 26 12:22:38 -0300 2010:
>> I don't think that holding WALWriteLock accomplishes much. It
>> prevents part of the buffer from being written out to OS/disk, and
>> thus becoming eligible for being overwritten in the buffer, but
Excerpts from Jeff Janes's message of mar oct 26 12:22:38 -0300 2010:
> I don't think that holding WALWriteLock accomplishes much. It
> prevents part of the buffer from being written out to OS/disk, and
> thus becoming eligible for being overwritten in the buffer, but the
> WALInsertLock prevents
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:08 PM, fazool mein wrote:
>> I'm writing a function that will read data from the buffer in xlog (i.e.
>> from XLogCtl->pages and XLogCtl->xlblocks). I want to make sure that I am
>> doing it correctly.
>> For reading
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:08 PM, fazool mein wrote:
> I'm writing a function that will read data from the buffer in xlog (i.e.
> from XLogCtl->pages and XLogCtl->xlblocks). I want to make sure that I am
> doing it correctly.
> For reading from the buffer, do I need to lock WALInsertLock or
> WALWr
> I'm writing a function that will read data from the buffer in xlog
> > (i.e. from XLogCtl->pages and XLogCtl->xlblocks). I want to make
> > sure that I am doing it correctly.
>
> Got an example of what the function might look like?
>
Say something like this:
bool ReadLogFromBuffer(char *buf,
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:08:54PM -0700, fazool mein wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> I'm writing a function that will read data from the buffer in xlog
> (i.e. from XLogCtl->pages and XLogCtl->xlblocks). I want to make
> sure that I am doing it correctly.
Got an example of what the function might loo
Hello guys,
I'm writing a function that will read data from the buffer in xlog (i.e.
from XLogCtl->pages and XLogCtl->xlblocks). I want to make sure that I am
doing it correctly.
For reading from the buffer, do I need to lock WALInsertLock or
WALWriteLock? Also, can you explain a bit the usage of
17 matches
Mail list logo
