| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Markus Wanner <markus(dot)wanner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] ProcessInterrupts_hook |
| Date: | 2021-03-19 19:25:45 |
| Message-ID: | 4156078.1616181945@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> writes:
> On 1/19/21 1:42 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> My suggestion, which I'm happy to post in patch form if you think it's
>> reasonable <snip>
> Tom, Robert, and thoughts on the proposals in [1]?
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGRY4nyNfscmQiZBCNT7cBYnQxJLAAVCGz%2BGZAQDAco1Fbb01w%40mail.gmail.com
No objection to generalizing the state passed through pmsignal.c.
I'm not very comfortable about the idea of having the postmaster set
child processes' latches ... that doesn't sound terribly safe from the
standpoint of not allowing the postmaster to mess with shared memory
state that could cause it to block or crash. If we already do that
elsewhere, then OK, but I don't think we do.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-03-19 19:35:46 | Re: pglz compression performance, take two |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2021-03-19 19:24:06 | Re: [POC] verifying UTF-8 using SIMD instructions |