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: