Hi, On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:07 PM, K, Niranjan (NSN - IN/Bangalore) > <niranja...@nsn.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Re-opening the discussion related to triggers to promote standby server. >> In the earlier dicussion, there were 2 proposals, Trigger based on file >> and trigger based on signals. I think there was no conclusion on this. >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01231.php >> >> According to the proposal, it seems to be better if signals are used as >> we can avoid checking the file existance in the loop. Or the other >> approach is to use inotify (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inotify). But >> portability to other unix like OS is an issue to look for. >> >> Could you please get back which is being implemented/ considered for >> promotion of standby? > > I had to choose the trigger file approach last time since the patch > was also using warm-standby in part. But, in 8.5, synch-rep is > going to work without warm-standby. So, we can choose also the > trigger based on signals. In this case,
In this case, I'm not sure which signal can be used for the trigger. SIGINT/QUIT/TERM/USR1 are already used in postmaster. SIGUSR2 is already reserved for children according to the source comment. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
