| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Multiplexing SUGUSR1 |
| Date: | 2009-01-07 17:14:13 |
| Message-ID: | 200901071714.n07HEDG05012@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark wrote:
>
> On 7 Jan 2009, at 09:47, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>
> > Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> It's required by the sync replication patch, but has no value
> >> otherwise.
> >
> > Well, we have talked about allowing more signalling long-term, and
> > this
> > would accomplish that independent of the sync replication, so we might
> > want to revisit this someday if it isn't included in sync replication.
>
> I also needed this for the progress indicator patch. I used SIGQUIT
> for the proof-of-concept patch but I wouldn't want to lose that signal
> for real.
Yep, we want multiplexed signals independent of sync replication.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-01-07 17:19:15 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-01-07 16:56:35 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |