Re: WalSndWakeup() and synchronous_commit=off

Hi,

On Monday, May 28, 2012 07:11:53 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > Does anybody have a better idea than to either call WalSndWakeup() at
> > essentially the wrong places or calling it inside a critical section?
> > 
> > Tom, what danger do you see from calling it in a critical section?
> 
> My concern was basically that it might throw an error.  Looking at the
> current implementation of SetLatch, it seems that's not possible, but
> I wonder whether we want to lock ourselves into that assumption.
The assumption is already made at several other places I think. 
XLogSetAsyncXactLSN does a SetLatch and is called from critical sections; 
several signal handlers call it without any attention to the context.

Requiring it to be called outside would make its usage considerably less 
convenient and I don't really see what could change that would require to 
throw non-panic errors.

> Still, if the alternatives are worse, maybe that's the best answer.
> If we do that, though, let's add comments to WalSndWakeup and SetLatch
> mentioning that they mustn't throw error.
Patch attached.

Greetings,

Andres


PS: Sorry for dropping the CC list before...

-- 
Andres Freund		http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services