Re: pg_ctl failover Re: Latches, signals, and waiting

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_ctl failover Re: Latches, signals, and waiting
Date: 2011-02-14 17:10:41
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


* Fujii Masao (masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Yeah, I rebased the patch to the current git master and attached it.

Reviewing this, I just had a couple of comments and questions. Overall,
I think it looks good and hence will be marking it 'Ready for

* You removed trigger_file from the list in
doc/src/sgml/high-availability.sgml and I'm not sure I agree with
that. It's still perfectly valid and could be used by someone
instead of pg_ctl promote. I'd recommend two things:
- Adding comments into this recovery.conf snippet
- Adding a comment indicationg that trigger_file is only needed if
you're not using pg_ctl promote.

* I'm not happy that pg_ctl.c doesn't #include something which defines
all the file names which are used, couldn't we use a header which
makes sense and is pulled in by pg_ctl.c and xlog.c to #define all of
these? Still, that's not really the fault of this patch.

* I'm a bit worried that there's just only so many USR signals that we
can send and it looks like we're burning another one here. Should we
be considering a better way to do this?



In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-02-14 17:14:47 Re: why two dashes in extension load files
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2011-02-14 17:08:47 Re: why two dashes in extension load files