On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ugh, you're right. But then you might have problems if the state > changes again before all backends have picked up the previous change.
Right. > What I've thought about before is making one backend (say, bgwriter) > store its latest value in shared memory, protected by some lock that > would already be held at the time the value is needed. Everyone else > uses the shared memory copy instead of relying on their local value. Sounds reasonable. 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
