On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> What happens if we shutdown the WALwriter and then issue SIGHUP? >>> >>> SIGHUP doesn't affect full_page_writes in that case. Oh, you are concerned >>> about >>> the case where smart shutdown kills walwriter but some backends are >>> still running? >>> Currently SIGHUP affects full_page_writes and running backends use the >>> changed >>> new value of full_page_writes. But in the patch, SIGHUP doesn't affect... >>> >>> To address the problem, we should either postpone the shutdown of walwriter >>> until all backends have gone away, or leave the update of full_page_writes >>> to >>> checkpointer process instead of walwriter. Thought? >> >> checkpointer seems the correct place to me > > > Done.
Thanks a lot!! I proposed another small patch which fixes the issue about an error message of pg_basebackup, in this upthread. If it's reasonable, could you commit it? http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwENjSDN=f_vdpwvq53qru0cu9+wzkbvwnaexmawj-y...@mail.gmail.com 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
