| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [ADMIN] does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
| Date: | 2006-05-19 16:27:33 |
| Message-ID: | 1148056053.2646.672.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 12:03 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > OK, I'm on it.
>
> What solution have you got in mind? I was thinking about an fcntl lock
> to ensure only one archiver is active in a given data directory. That
> would fix the problem without affecting anything outside the archiver.
> Not sure what's the most portable way to do it though.
I was trying to think of a better way than using an archiver.pid file in
pg_xlog/archive_status...
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Frost | 2006-05-19 16:32:42 | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-19 16:25:31 | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-05-19 16:32:17 | Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2006-05-19 16:25:44 | Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? |