| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hiroyuki Yamada <yamada(at)kokolink(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronization primitives (Was: Re: An example of bugs for Hot Standby) |
| Date: | 2010-01-20 18:45:07 |
| Message-ID: | 1264013107.4043.3961.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 20:00 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Hot standby also has a polling loop where it waits for a
> transaction a transaction to die, though I'm not sure if that can be
> fit into the same model
I prefer that in the context of HS because the Startup process is
waiting for things to die. Given that their death may not be handled
sweetly, I would not wish to rely on that to wake Startup.
In the other two cases you mention all processes are working together
normally and we aren't expecting the other processes to die.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-01-20 18:47:10 | Re: An example of bugs for Hot Standby |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-20 18:16:05 | Re: Synchronization primitives (Was: Re: An example of bugs for Hot Standby) |