| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Notify enhancement |
| Date: | 2006-12-18 20:33:57 |
| Message-ID: | 28300.1166474037@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I just wondered idly if we could piggyback on the existing
> WAKEN_CHILDREN/SIGUSR1 mechanism?
I'd be inclined to keep it separate. There isn't currently any benefit
to merging them, and I think it would convolute the code. In particular
I'm not convinced that we want to do both sorts of cleanups at the same
times.
That's not to say that we might not want to use the postmaster as an
intermediary, but I'd still want it to be a separate signal.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-12-18 20:45:43 | effective_cache_size vs units |
| Previous Message | Mike G | 2006-12-18 20:32:29 | Typo in pg_dump documentation and new suggestion for Release Notes |