From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Allow interrupts on waiting standby |
Date: | 2017-01-26 19:36:11 |
Message-ID: | CANP8+jK75m4XnobReuZ6vPJthMQ4a+qnNaq3dxefq2bjno9nEA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 26 January 2017 at 19:20, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2017-01-26 12:24:44 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 7:18 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Currently a waiting standby doesn't allow interrupts.
>> >
>> > Patch implements that.
>> >
>> > Barring objection, patching today with backpatches.
>>
>> "today" is a little quick, but the patch looks fine. I doubt anyone's
>> going to screech too loud about adding a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() call.
>
> I don't quite get asking for agreement, and then not waiting as
> suggested. I'm personally fine with going with a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS
> for now, but I think it'd better to replace it with a latch.
I have waited, so not sure what you mean. Tomorrow is too late.
Replacing with a latch wouldn't be backpatchable, IMHO.
I've no problem if you want to work on a deeper fix for future versions.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-01-26 19:37:07 | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-01-26 19:34:17 | Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique |