Hi,
I revised the patch according to the suggestion.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Fujii Masao<masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think you're making things more complicated when they should be
>> getting simpler.
>>
>> It strikes me that the current API of "pass the BackendId if known or
>> InvalidBackendId if not" still works for processes without a BackendId,
>> as long as you can tolerate a bit of extra search overhead for them.
>> (You could reduce the search overhead by searching the array back to
>> front.) So a new process index may be overkill.
>
> Yeah, this is very simple. I'll change the patch according to your suggestion.
Done.
>>> Umm... the patch should cover a notify interrupt which currently uses
>>> SIGUSR2?
>>
>> Getting rid of the separate SIGUSR2 handler would definitely be a good
>> proof of concept that the mechanism works for more than one use.
>
> OK. I'll change the patch as above.
Done.
But there is one issue; the extra search is always required to send a notify
interrupt. This is because pg_listener doesn't have a backend ID and we
cannot pass it to SendProcSignal. In order to solve this issue, we should
newly add backend ID field into pg_listener?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center