| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add WAL read stats to pg_stat_wal |
| Date: | 2023-02-21 03:00:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20230221.120032.1717422466695488514.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Mon, 20 Feb 2023 20:15:00 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> Having said that, what's the problem if we use shared memory to report
> the shutdown checkpoint to the postmaster? In case of abnormal
> shutdown where shared memory gets corrupted, we don't even write a
> shutdown checkpoint, no? In such a case, the postmaster doesn't send
> SIGUSR2 to the checkpointer, instead it sends SIGQUIT. AFICS, using
> shared memory doesn't seem to have any problem. Do you have any other
> thoughts in mind?
I had a baseless belief that postmaster doesn't touch shared memory,
but as Andres suggested, SendPostmasterSignal() already does that.
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2023-02-21 03:09:15 | Re: SQL/JSON revisited |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2023-02-21 02:58:39 | Re: Add WAL read stats to pg_stat_wal |