Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_ctl vs. Windows locking

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers-win32 <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_ctl vs. Windows locking
Date: 2004-06-18 16:18:21
Message-ID: 21345.1087575501@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Right, we can just close the pipe.  I was thinking of adding another
>>> signal but that's obviously easier.  Will work on making this happen.
>> 
>> ... except there is no postmaster pipe anymore --- back to plan A.

> Did we get a resolution on this?

Yes, I committed the change several days ago.  The pgstat processes are
told to shut down at the same time the shutdown checkpoint starts.
I didn't actually make the postmaster wait for them, but I'd think that
under normal circumstances the shutdown checkpoint will take longer.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2004-06-19 20:10:10
Subject: Re: Compiling libpq with VisualC
Previous:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2004-06-17 20:58:12
Subject: PostgreSQL SCM

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group