On 15/09/10 09:19, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 10:33 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Simon Riggs<simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Like latches, nice one.
>>>
>>> The way the loop in WalSender now happens it won't send any outstanding
>>> WAL if a shutdown is requested while it is waiting.
>>>
>>> That probably needs to change and we'd do similarly in other procs.
>>
>> Really? ISTM that walsender tries to send all outstanding WAL without
>> problems after it receives SIGUSR2. Am I missing something?
>
> For SIGUSR2, you're right.
>
> However, if the following clause is ever invoked, then the loop does
> have problems and we leave when not caught up.
>
> if (!PostmasterIsAlive(true))
> exit(1);
As the comment above that says, that's just an escape hatch if
postmaster dies unexpectedly for any reason. It won't happen in a normal
shutdown.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
