On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 18:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Thanks for reading. Updated version in new patch. > > What was the reasoning for basing walwriter.c on autovacuum (which needs > to be able to execute transactions) rather than bgwriter (which does > not)?
Writing WAL means we have to have xlog access and therefore shared memory access. Don't really need the ability to execute transactions though, tis true, but I wasn't aware there was a distinction. > The shutdown logic in particular seems all wrong; you can't have > a process connected to shared memory that is going to outlive the > postmaster. It seemed to work cleanly when I tested it initially, but I'll take another look tomorrow. By version 23 I was going code-blind. Autovac is the most clean implementation of a special process, so seemed like a good prototype. I'd thought I'd combed out any pointless code though. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
