| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock' |
| Date: | 2007-06-20 15:47:28 |
| Message-ID: | 18686.1182354448@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Is it possible for unlocking the semaphore to wake another process other than
> our own? In which case checking log_lock_waits before signalling the semaphore
> arguably locks us into having log_lock_waits be PGC_POSTMASTER.
How you figure that?
> Currently it's PGC_SIGHUP which is odd since it could have been
> USERSET in the old regime.
Actually I changed it to SUSET yesterday. I don't see any strong reason
why we should disallow different processes having different settings;
however, if the DBA is trying to gather this info, random users
shouldn't be able to turn it off.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-06-20 16:29:18 | Re: [HACKERS] 'Waiting on lock' |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-06-20 15:43:06 | Re: Preliminary GSSAPI Patches |