Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication
Date
Msg-id 3f0b79eb0809110545w37c2080yc858a3a1d8658973@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication  (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>)
Responses Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication  (Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch> wrote:
>> Which signal should we use for the notification to the backend from
>> WAL sender? The notable signals are already used.
>
> I'm using SIGUSR1, see src/backend/storage/ipc/imsg.c from Postgres-R, line
> 232. That isn't is use for backends or the postmaster, AFAIK.

Umm... backends have already used SIGUSR1. PostgresMain() sets up a signal
handler for SIGUSR1 as follows.
            pqsignal(SIGUSR1, CatchupInterruptHandler);

Which signal should WAL sender send to backends?

>> Or, since a backend don't need to wait on select() unlike WAL sender,
>> ISTM that it's not so inconvenient to use a semaphore for that
>> notification.
>
> They probably could, but not the WAL sender.

Yes, since WAL sender waits on select(), it's convenient to use signal
for the notification *from backends to WAL sender*, I think too.

Best regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Transaction Snapshots and Hot Standby
Next
From: Csaba Nagy
Date:
Subject: Re: Transaction Snapshots and Hot Standby