| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Hot standby |
| Date: | 2008-11-28 16:31:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1227889905.20796.196.camel@hp_dx2400_1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 11:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > After some thought, the way I would handle this is by sending a slightly
> > different kind of signal.
>
> > We can send a shared invalidation message which means "end the
> > transaction, whether or not you are currently running a statement".
>
> No, a thousand times no.
So you're against it? ;-)
> The sinval queue is an *utterly* inappropriate
> mechanism for such a thing.
To be honest, it did seem quite a neat solution. Any particular
direction of thought you'd like me to pursue instead?
Asking the backend to kill itself is much cleaner than the other ways I
imagined. So my other thoughts steer towards hijacking the SIGUSR1
signal somehow for my nefarious purposes. Would that way sound OK?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-11-28 16:38:45 | Re: Distinct types |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-28 16:25:23 | Re: HEAD build failure on win32 mingw |