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

Re: damage control mode

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: damage control mode
Date: 2010-01-08 03:51:01
Message-ID: 25760.1262922661@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Looking at this list again, it strikes me that the listen/notify rewrite
>> might need to go in so that we have a sane framework for listen/notify
>> with HS.

> It's also related to this open issue, so possibly we could kill two
> birds with one stone (although I guess that would still leave the
> problem of what to do in the back branches).
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2009-12/msg00274.php

Uh, no, AFAICS that is an independent problem.  The actual bug is that
our Windows signal implementation can lose signals.  That spells trouble
in all kinds of contexts, not only NOTIFY.

>> My thought about it would be to put these four on the back burner;

> That seems wishy-washy.

Fair enough ;-).  But I don't feel a need to make a decision now,
either.  We can at least wait a week and see if Heikki gets SR
committed.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-01-08 04:00:57
Subject: Re: damage control mode
Previous:From: Alex HunsakerDate: 2010-01-08 03:46:23
Subject: Re: Setting oom_adj on linux?

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