Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> But I dislike copying the table entries anyway, see comment on -hackers.
> Frankly the cycle id idea sounds more ugly and fragile to me. You'll
> need to do multiple scans of the hash table that way, starting from top
> every time you call AbsorbFsyncRequests (like we do know).
How so? You just ignore entries whose cycleid is too large. You'd have
to be careful about wraparound in the comparisons, but that's not hard
to deal with. Also, AFAICS you still have the retry problem (and an
even bigger memory leak problem) with this coding --- the "to-do list"
doesn't eliminate the issue of correct handling of a failure.
> Ok, will do that. Or would you like to just take over from here?
No, I'm up to my ears in varlena. You're the one in a position to test
this, anyway.
regards, tom lane
