| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com, tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru, ah(at)cybertec(dot)at, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: shared-memory based stats collector |
| Date: | 2020-03-10 06:11:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20200310.151121.615486127876459186.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Mon, 9 Mar 2020 20:34:20 -0700, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote in
> On 2020-03-10 12:27:25 +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > That's true, but I have the same concern with Tom. The archive bacame
> > too-tightly linked with other processes than actual relation.
>
> What's the problem here? We have a number of helper processes
> (checkpointer, bgwriter) that are attached to shared memory, and it's
> not a problem.
That theoretically raises the chance of server-crash by a small amount
of probability. But, yes, it's absurd to prmise that archiver process
crashes.
> > We may need the second static shared memory segment apart from the
> > current one.
>
> That seems absurd to me. Solving a non-problem by introducing complex
> new infrastructure.
Ok. I think I must be worrying too much.
Thanks for the suggestion.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-03-10 06:17:23 | Re: Crash by targetted recovery |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-03-10 05:59:00 | Re: Crash by targetted recovery |