Re: How should the waiting backends behave in sync rep?
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: How should the waiting backends behave in sync rep? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1300265084.20494.7538.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: How should the waiting backends behave in sync rep? (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: How should the waiting backends behave in sync rep?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2011-03-16 at 16:36 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > There's a comment that looks related to this issue in syncrep.c. It reads: > > > > /* > > * We don't receive SIGHUPs at this point, so resetting > > * synchronous_standby_names has no effect on waiters. > > */ > > > > It's unclear to me what this actually means. Is there some reason we > > CAN'T receive SIGHUPs at that point, or have we just chosen not to > > (for unexplained reasons)? > > Not sure. Simon? > > It seems harmless to receive SIGHUP at that point. You pointed out this out to me, so if you want I can explain back to you again ;-) Signals are blocked over that section of code. We could write a scary bit of code to get around that, but it smells badly of kludge. What do you think we should do? -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: