Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe we should go back to the plan of having the postmaster
>> wait for the archiver to exit.
> Yeah, that seems the safest to me -- the problem is that it complicates
> the shutdown sequence a fair bit, because postmaster must act
> differently depending on whether archiving is enabled or not: wait for
> bgwriter exit if disabled, or for archiver exit otherwise.
Given the recent changes to make the postmaster act as a state machine,
I don't think this is really a big deal --- it's just one more state.
The bigger part is that the archiver can't wait for postmaster exit.
We'll need a proper shutdown signal for the archiver, but since it's
not using SIGUSR2 that can be commandeered easily. So it'd be like
SIGUSR1 -> do an archive cycle
SIGUSR2 -> do an archive cycle and exit
no postmaster -> just exit
The rationale for the last is that it's a crash situation, and
furthermore there's a risk of someone starting a new postmaster
and a conflicting archiver. So we should put back the behavior
my last patch removed of aborting archiving immediately on
I'll respin my patch this way...
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2008-01-10 15:53:04|
|Subject: Re: Revised patch for fixing archiver shutdown behavior|
|Previous:||From: Hiroshi Saito||Date: 2008-01-10 15:29:53|
|Subject: Re: reference problem of manifest.(win32.mak of libpq.dll)|