On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 12:28:55AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Luke Lonergan wrote:
> >> Has there been any agreement or a concept for remote reboot?
>
> > Reload of config file and rotate log files were part of the original
> > patch that I will try to apply. I am not sure how remote restart would
> > work.
>
> Remote reboot to change shared_buffers and other shmem-sizing parameters
> seems pretty doable: all you need is a slightly more user-friendly
> version of the standard response to backend crash, since that sequence
> already kills and recreates the shmem segment. The postmaster itself
> doesn't have to change anything.
Let's consider what to do if the new shmem size is bigger than the
current value, and the new value exceeds kernel limits. How can we
measure that in advance? Maybe create a new segment, sized as the
difference between new and old; then destroy both and recreate the new,
bigger one. It doesn't strike me as super straightforward.
Are we prepared to "rollback to a known-safe value"?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]alvh.no-ip.org>)
"Los dioses no protegen a los insensatos. Éstos reciben protección de
otros insensatos mejor dotados" (Luis Wu, Mundo Anillo)
