| From: | Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AdvanceXLInsertBuffer vs. WAL segment compressibility |
| Date: | 2017-06-29 22:09:59 |
| Message-ID: | 59557AB7.1060203@anastigmatix.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/25/17 21:20, Chapman Flack wrote:
> I want to make sure I understand what the deadlock potential is
> in this case. AdvanceXLInsertBuffer will call WaitXLogInsertionsToFinish
> ...
> Does not the fact we hold all the insertion slots exclude the possibility
> that any dirty buffer (preceding the one we're touching) needs to be checked
> for in-flight insertions? [in the filling-out-the-log-tail case only]
Anyone?
Or have I not even achieved 'wrong' yet?
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Satyanarayana Narlapuram | 2017-06-29 23:29:43 | Re: protocol version negotiation (Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility) |
| Previous Message | Amit Khandekar | 2017-06-29 19:52:11 | Re: UPDATE of partition key |