Re: Group commit, revised
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2012-02-07T08:15:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 04.02.2012 07:24, Jeff Janes wrote: > Is it safe to assume that, under "#ifdef LWLOCK_STATS", a call to > LWLockAcquire will always precede any calls to LWLockWaitUntilFree > when a new process is started, to calloc the stats assays? > > I guess it is right now, because the only user is WALWrite, which > would never be acquired before WALInsert is at least once. But this > doesn't seem very future proof. Agreed, we can't count on that. There's no clear single point after a process startup where the first lwlock is acquired. Out of curiosity, I added an elog(LOG, ...) to that initialization code, to log which lwlock is acquired first in a process. It depends on the process and circumstances - here's the list I got: BufFreeListLock ShmemIndexLock XidGenLock ProcArrayLock BgWriterCommLock AutoVacuumLock And that's probably not all, I bet you would acquire different locks first with recovery, streaming replication etc.. I didn't test those. Anyway, I added the initialization to LWLockWaitUntilFree now. Thanks! > I guess the same complain could be logged against LWLockConditionalAcquire. LWLockConditionalAcquire doesn't update the stats, so it's ok. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com