Re: PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Marco Pfatschbacher <Marco_Pfatschbacher(at)genua(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process
Date: 2016-09-19 23:26:06
Message-ID: 20160919232606.jdhup2qsrgnjq4xc@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016-09-20 11:07:03 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Yeah, I wondered why that was different than the pattern established
> elsewhere when I was hacking on replication code. There are actually
> several places where we call PostmasterIsAlive() unconditionally in a
> loop that waits for WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH but ignores the return code:

Note that just changing this implies a behavioural change in at least
some of those: If the loop is busy with work, the WaitLatch might never
be reached. I think that might be ok in most of those, but it does
require examination.

- Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2016-09-20 01:54:28 Re: [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint)
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2016-09-19 23:07:03 Re: PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process