Re: Question regarding "Make archiver process an auxiliary process. commit"

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Sravan Kumar <sravanvcybage(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Question regarding "Make archiver process an auxiliary process. commit"
Date: 2023-02-01 06:51:48
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 08:30:13PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> I'm not sure why I thought time.h was no longer needed. time() is clearly
> used elsewhere in this file. Here's a new version with that added back.

Ah, I see. The key point is that curtime and last_copy_time will most
likely be the same value as time() is second-based, so timeout is
basically always PGARCH_AUTOWAKE_INTERVAL. There is no need to care
about time_to_stop, as we just go through and exit if it happens to be
switched to true. Applied v3, keeping time_to_stop as it is in v2 and
v3 so as we don't loop again on a postmaster death.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ilya Gladyshev 2023-02-01 07:21:35 Re: Progress report of CREATE INDEX for nested partitioned tables
Previous Message 2023-02-01 06:49:24 RE: pub/sub - specifying optional parameters without values.