From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time |
Date: | 2017-06-26 21:38:03 |
Message-ID: | 15732.1498513083@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-06-26 17:30:30 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, I don't like that at all. Has race conditions against updates
>> coming from the startup process.
> You'd obviously have to take the appropriate locks. I think the issue
> here is less race conditions, and more that architecturally we'd
> interact with shmem too much.
Uh, we are *not* taking any locks in the postmaster.
>> Yeah, that would be a different way to go at it. The postmaster would
>> probably just write the state of the hot_standby GUC to the file, and
>> pg_ctl would have to infer things from there.
> I'd actually say we should just mirror the existing
> #ifdef USE_SYSTEMD
> if (!EnableHotStandby)
> sd_notify(0, "READY=1");
> #endif
> with corresponding pidfile updates - doesn't really seem necessary for
> pg_ctl to do more?
Hm. Take that a bit further, and we could drop the connection probes
altogether --- just put the whole responsibility on the postmaster to
show in the pidfile whether it's ready for connections or not.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-06-26 21:50:18 | Re: Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-06-26 21:34:14 | Re: Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time |