| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Marco Pfatschbacher <Marco_Pfatschbacher(at)genua(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process |
| Date: | 2016-09-19 23:26:06 |
| Message-ID: | 20160919232606.jdhup2qsrgnjq4xc@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | PostgreSQL: Danh |
On 2016-09-20 11:07:03 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Yeah, I wondered why that was different than the pattern established
> elsewhere when I was hacking on replication code. There are actually
> several places where we call PostmasterIsAlive() unconditionally in a
> loop that waits for WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH but ignores the return code:
Note that just changing this implies a behavioural change in at least
some of those: If the loop is busy with work, the WaitLatch might never
be reached. I think that might be ok in most of those, but it does
require examination.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-09-20 01:54:28 | Re: [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2016-09-19 23:07:03 | Re: PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process |