Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication
| От | Fujii Masao |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 3f0b79eb0809110545w37c2080yc858a3a1d8658973@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication
Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> wrote:
>> Which signal should we use for the notification to the backend from
>> WAL sender? The notable signals are already used.
>
> I'm using SIGUSR1, see src/backend/storage/ipc/imsg.c from Postgres-R, line
> 232. That isn't is use for backends or the postmaster, AFAIK.
Umm... backends have already used SIGUSR1. PostgresMain() sets up a signal
handler for SIGUSR1 as follows.
pqsignal(SIGUSR1, CatchupInterruptHandler);
Which signal should WAL sender send to backends?
>> Or, since a backend don't need to wait on select() unlike WAL sender,
>> ISTM that it's not so inconvenient to use a semaphore for that
>> notification.
>
> They probably could, but not the WAL sender.
Yes, since WAL sender waits on select(), it's convenient to use signal
for the notification *from backends to WAL sender*, I think too.
Best regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: