Re: Unix latch implementation that wakes on postmaster death

From: Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Unix latch implementation that wakes on postmaster death
Date: 2011-05-13 15:25:40
Message-ID: BANLkTi=MS+VV227fCd1mwYZSeoVMNtKg1w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 13 May 2011 16:18, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'm not that thrilled with the "life sign" terminology, but don't
>> have a better idea right offhand.
>
> Yeah, that made no sense to me.  Can't we just refer to detecting
> postmaster death?

Fine by me.

--
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-05-13 16:10:56 Re: SSI-related code drift between index_getnext() and heap_hot_search_buffer()
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-05-13 15:18:04 Re: Unix latch implementation that wakes on postmaster death