Re: Latches, loop and exit

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Latches, loop and exit
Date: 2010-09-15 06:40:40
Message-ID: 4C906A68.9040709@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 15/09/10 09:19, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 10:33 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Like latches, nice one.
>>>
>>> The way the loop in WalSender now happens it won't send any outstanding
>>> WAL if a shutdown is requested while it is waiting.
>>>
>>> That probably needs to change and we'd do similarly in other procs.
>>
>> Really? ISTM that walsender tries to send all outstanding WAL without
>> problems after it receives SIGUSR2. Am I missing something?
>
> For SIGUSR2, you're right.
>
> However, if the following clause is ever invoked, then the loop does
> have problems and we leave when not caught up.
>
> if (!PostmasterIsAlive(true))
> exit(1);

As the comment above that says, that's just an escape hatch if
postmaster dies unexpectedly for any reason. It won't happen in a normal
shutdown.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Markus Wanner 2010-09-15 06:48:38 Re: bg worker: patch 1 of 6 - permanent process
Previous Message Fujii Masao 2010-09-15 06:38:09 Re: Latches, loop and exit