On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> Any reason or objection to committing this patch? >> >> Not on my end, though I haven't reviewed it in detail. One minor note >> - I was mildly surprised to see that you moved this to the >> checkpointer rather than leaving it in the bgwriter: >> >> + /* Do this once before starting the loop, then just at SIGHUP time. >> */ >> + SyncRepUpdateSyncStandbysDefined(); >> >> My preference would probably have been to leave that in the background >> writer, on the theory that the checkpointer's work is likely to be >> more bursty and therefore it might be less responsive. > > That needs to be in the checkpointer because that is the process that > shuts down last. > > The bgwriter is now more like the walwriter. It shuts down early in > the shutdown process, while the checkpointer is last out. > > So it wasn't preference, it was a requirement of the new role definitions.
Oh, I see. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
