On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 09:40 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > However, if the following clause is ever invoked, then the loop does
> > have problems and we leave when not caught up.
> >
> > if (!PostmasterIsAlive(true))
> > exit(1);
>
> As the comment above that says, that's just an escape
On 15/09/10 09:19, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 10:33 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
Like latches, nice one.
The way the loop in WalSender now happens it won't send any outstanding
WAL if a shutdown is requested while it is waiting.
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> For SIGUSR2, you're right.
>
> However, if the following clause is ever invoked, then the loop does
> have problems and we leave when not caught up.
>
> if (!PostmasterIsAlive(true))
> exit(1);
In normal shutdown case, that clause is no
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 10:33 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > Like latches, nice one.
> >
> > The way the loop in WalSender now happens it won't send any outstanding
> > WAL if a shutdown is requested while it is waiting.
> >
> > That probably
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> Like latches, nice one.
>
> The way the loop in WalSender now happens it won't send any outstanding
> WAL if a shutdown is requested while it is waiting.
>
> That probably needs to change and we'd do similarly in other procs.
Really? ISTM t
Like latches, nice one.
The way the loop in WalSender now happens it won't send any outstanding
WAL if a shutdown is requested while it is waiting.
That probably needs to change and we'd do similarly in other procs.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Su
