| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm. |
| Date: | 2017-02-07 07:04:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+RdASBimnEtn8ML7DD1xRsnZ_8k5ZPygHazk07D_kemg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> ==================
> One problem now I have kept it open is multiple "auto pg_prewarm dump"
> can be launched even if already a dump/load worker is running by
> calling launch_pg_prewarm_dump. I can avoid this by dropping a
> lock-file before starting the bgworkers. But, if there is an another
> method to avoid launching bgworker on a simple method I can do same.
>
How about keeping a variable in PROC_HDR structure to indicate if
already one dump worker is running, then don't allow to start a new
one?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-02-07 07:10:25 | Re: IF [NOT] EXISTS for replication slots |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-02-07 06:54:02 | Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm. |