| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: walsender & parallelism |
| Date: | 2017-04-24 02:33:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20170424023305.o5b3q3mw2ldhtu64@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-04-24 04:27:58 +0200, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 24/04/17 01:43, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> >> BTW while looking at the code, I don't understand why we call
> >> latch_sigusr1_handler after calling SetLatch(MyLatch), shouldn't just
> >> the SetLatch be enough (they both end up calling sendSelfPipeByte()
> >> eventually)?
> >
> > Historic raisins - there didn't use to be a SetLatch in
> > procsignal_sigusr1_handler. That changed when I whacked around catchup &
> > notify to be based on latches ([1] and following).
> >
> > [1] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=59f71a0d0b56b2df48db4bf1738aece5551f7a47
> >
>
> Okay, but why call both SetLatch and latch_sigusr1_handler? What does
> that buy us?
Nothing. It's how the code evolved, we can change that.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-24 02:33:20 | Re: TAP tests - installcheck vs check |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-04-24 02:32:31 | Re: walsender & parallelism |