Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
> <dimi...@2ndquadrant.fr> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I think that the basic problem with wal_level is that to increase it
>>> you need to somehow ensure that all the backends have the new setting,
>>> and then checkpoint.
>>
>> Well, you just said when to force the "reload" to take effect: at
>> checkpoint time. IIRC we already multiplex SIGUSR1, is that possible to
>> add that behavior here? And signal every backend at checkpoint time
>> when wal_level has changed?
> Sending them a signal seems like a promising approach, but the trick
> is guaranteeing that they've actually acted on it before you start the
> checkpoint.
Have the backends show their current wal_level in their PGPROC entries.
Sleep till they're all reporting the right thing, then fire checkpoint.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
