On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 12:09 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ugh, you're right. But then you might have problems if the state
> changes again before all backends have picked up the previous change.
Right.
> What I've thought about before is making one backend (say, bgwriter)
> store its latest value in shared memory, protected by some lock that
> would already be held at the time the value is needed. Everyone else
> uses the shared memory copy instead of relying on their local value.
Sounds reasonable.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
