| From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: walsender & parallelism |
| Date: | 2017-04-24 02:27:58 |
| Message-ID: | b47945db-0a47-dca1-6754-a6d4849feabb@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24/04/17 01:43, Andres Freund wrote:
>
>> BTW while looking at the code, I don't understand why we call
>> latch_sigusr1_handler after calling SetLatch(MyLatch), shouldn't just
>> the SetLatch be enough (they both end up calling sendSelfPipeByte()
>> eventually)?
>
> Historic raisins - there didn't use to be a SetLatch in
> procsignal_sigusr1_handler. That changed when I whacked around catchup &
> notify to be based on latches ([1] and following).
>
> [1] https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=59f71a0d0b56b2df48db4bf1738aece5551f7a47
>
Okay, but why call both SetLatch and latch_sigusr1_handler? What does
that buy us?
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-04-24 02:31:05 | Re: walsender & parallelism |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2017-04-24 02:26:16 | Re: walsender & parallelism |