On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 16:01 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > Having the Startup process wait does not buy us anything at all. > > Currently if the Startup process finishes more quickly than the > > WALreceiver it will wait for 100ms. > > Ok, here's a patch to add signaling between walreceiver and startup > process. It indeed isn't much code, and seems pretty safe, so if no-one > objects strongly, I'll commit. It won't help on platforms where > pg_usleep() isn't interrupted by signals, though, but we can live with that.
Looks good. There is also the fixed 5 sec wait when polling the archive. I would like to make that a parameter, since that was previously controllable with pg_standby. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
