Re: [HACKERS] Revised signal multiplexer patch
Hi, On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: I revised the patch according to the suggestion. Applied with some mostly-cosmetic editorial work. Thank you very much! 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
Re: [HACKERS] Revised signal multiplexer patch
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: But there is one issue; the extra search is always required to send a notify interrupt. This is because pg_listener doesn't have a backend ID and we cannot pass it to SendProcSignal. In order to solve this issue, we should newly add backend ID field into pg_listener? Hmm. I'm not tremendously concerned about that --- the LISTEN/NOTIFY code has been on the agenda for a complete rewrite for a long time now, and I keep hoping pg_listener will go away entirely sometime soon. I don't feel a need to go and fix a marginal performance issue there. 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
Re: [HACKERS] Revised signal multiplexer patch
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: I revised the patch according to the suggestion. Applied with some mostly-cosmetic editorial work. 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
Re: [HACKERS] Revised signal multiplexer patch
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes: I revised the patch according to the suggestion. Applied with some mostly-cosmetic editorial work. regards, tom lane Awesome, congrats. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Revised signal multiplexer patch
Hi, I revised the patch according to the suggestion. On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I think you're making things more complicated when they should be getting simpler. It strikes me that the current API of pass the BackendId if known or InvalidBackendId if not still works for processes without a BackendId, as long as you can tolerate a bit of extra search overhead for them. (You could reduce the search overhead by searching the array back to front.) So a new process index may be overkill. Yeah, this is very simple. I'll change the patch according to your suggestion. Done. Umm... the patch should cover a notify interrupt which currently uses SIGUSR2? Getting rid of the separate SIGUSR2 handler would definitely be a good proof of concept that the mechanism works for more than one use. OK. I'll change the patch as above. Done. But there is one issue; the extra search is always required to send a notify interrupt. This is because pg_listener doesn't have a backend ID and we cannot pass it to SendProcSignal. In order to solve this issue, we should newly add backend ID field into pg_listener? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center signal_multiplexer_0729.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
