Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: timezone GUC

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: timezone GUC
Date: 2011-05-23 02:12:31
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 9:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If not, then how about jiggering things somehow so that only one
>> server process needs to run the hack?  Perhaps it can drop the result
>> in a file or shared memory or something from which the remaining
>> backends can read it out without having to redo all that work?
>> Admittedly there is a synchronization problem there I'm not quite sure
>> how to solve.
> Well, the main point in my mind is that the process is so damn expensive
> that we don't want to run it at all, ever, if we can avoid it.
> We could imagine launching a postmaster child to compute the result,
> as you suggest.  And it would work 99.9% of the time, because probably
> nobody would remove the setting from postgresql.conf within a few
> seconds of having started the postmaster.  But also, 99.999% of the time
> it would be completely wasted effort because the DBA wouldn't remove the
> postgresql.conf setting at all, ever.

Well, by that argument, we ought not to worry about masterminding what
happens if the DBA does do such a thing -- just run the whole process
and damn the torpedoes.  If it causes a brief database stall, at least
they'll get the correct behavior.

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-05-23 02:13:50
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #6034: pg_upgrade fails when it should not.
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-05-23 01:54:07
Subject: Re: timezone GUC

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group