Re: Review: Hot standby
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Review: Hot standby |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1227889905.20796.196.camel@hp_dx2400_1 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Review: Hot standby (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Review: Hot standby
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 11:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes: > > After some thought, the way I would handle this is by sending a slightly > > different kind of signal. > > > We can send a shared invalidation message which means "end the > > transaction, whether or not you are currently running a statement". > > No, a thousand times no. So you're against it? ;-) > The sinval queue is an *utterly* inappropriate > mechanism for such a thing. To be honest, it did seem quite a neat solution. Any particular direction of thought you'd like me to pursue instead? Asking the backend to kill itself is much cleaner than the other ways I imagined. So my other thoughts steer towards hijacking the SIGUSR1 signal somehow for my nefarious purposes. Would that way sound OK? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: