| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi, dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP |
| Date: | 2018-09-18 06:39:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20180918063937.GM31460@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 01:06:09PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> I was wrong here. It was handled in HandleStartupProcInterrupts
> called from StartupXLOG. So, it should be just removed from the
> set. Sorry for the bogus patch.
Thanks for confirming.
Still, it looks like a waste to abuse on SIGINT just to forcibly wake up
the checkpointer and request from it a checkpoint... And you could just
have used a new parameter for the checkpointer appended with
CHECKPOINT_FORCE. I think that my approach of just making the set of
events purely ordered will save from any kind of race conditions, while
I suspect that what you propose here does not close all the holes.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2018-09-18 07:15:42 | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-09-18 06:34:57 | Re: Problem while setting the fpw with SIGHUP |