Hi,
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
Hi,
Thanks for reviewing the patch!
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Neither of these changes seem like a good idea to me. The use of a
spinlock renders the mechanism unsafe for use from the postmaster ---
we do not wish the postmaster to risk getting stuck
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
If we want to be able to signal processes that don't have a ProcState
entry, it would be better to assign an independent index instead of
overloading BackendId like this.
OK, I'll
Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com writes:
I updated the patch to solve two problems which you pointed.
Here is the changes:
* Prevented the obsolete flag to being set to a new process, by using
newly-introduced spinlock.
* Used the index of AuxiliaryProcs instead of auxType, to assign
Hi Jaime,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:31 AM, Jaime
Casanovajcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
I'm reviewing this patch:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/3f0b79eb0907022341m1d36a841x19c3e2a5a6906...@mail.gmail.com
Thanks for reviewing the patch!
something that make me nervous is this:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm reviewing this patch:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/3f0b79eb0907022341m1d36a841x19c3e2a5a6906...@mail.gmail.com
I updated the patch to solve two problems which you pointed.
Here is the changes:
*
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Fujii Masaomasao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm reviewing this patch:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/3f0b79eb0907022341m1d36a841x19c3e2a5a6906...@mail.gmail.com
I updated the
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Jaime
Casanovajcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
i wasn't able to repeat this on a new instalation and of
course i can't swear this is your patch fault...
this is not your patch fault but an existing bug, i repeat that
behaviour in an unpatched source tree...
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Jaime
Casanovajcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
i wasn't able to repeat this on a new instalation and of
course i can't swear this is your patch fault...
this is not your patch fault but an existing bug, i repeat that
behaviour in an unpatched source
Hi,
I'm reviewing this patch:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/3f0b79eb0907022341m1d36a841x19c3e2a5a6906...@mail.gmail.com
This one applies almost cleanly, except for a minor hunk in elog.c and
postinit.c
Compiles and pass regression tests (i tried both steps in a debian
lenny amd
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Jaime
Casanovajcasa...@systemguards.com.ec wrote:
Hi,
I'm reviewing this patch:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/3f0b79eb0907022341m1d36a841x19c3e2a5a6906...@mail.gmail.com
Another thing that took my attention, i don't think this is safe (it
assumes
11 matches
Mail list logo
