Thread: Revised signal multiplexer patch
Hi, I revised the patch according to the suggestion. On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Fujii Masao<masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I think you're making things more complicated when they should be >> getting simpler. >> >> It strikes me that the current API of "pass the BackendId if known or >> InvalidBackendId if not" still works for processes without a BackendId, >> as long as you can tolerate a bit of extra search overhead for them. >> (You could reduce the search overhead by searching the array back to >> front.) So a new process index may be overkill. > > Yeah, this is very simple. I'll change the patch according to your suggestion. Done. >>> Umm... the patch should cover a notify interrupt which currently uses >>> SIGUSR2? >> >> Getting rid of the separate SIGUSR2 handler would definitely be a good >> proof of concept that the mechanism works for more than one use. > > OK. I'll change the patch as above. Done. But there is one issue; the extra search is always required to send a notify interrupt. This is because pg_listener doesn't have a backend ID and we cannot pass it to SendProcSignal. In order to solve this issue, we should newly add backend ID field into pg_listener? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
> But there is one issue; the extra search is always required to send a notify
> interrupt. This is because pg_listener doesn't have a backend ID and we
> cannot pass it to SendProcSignal. In order to solve this issue, we should
> newly add backend ID field into pg_listener?
Hmm. I'm not tremendously concerned about that --- the LISTEN/NOTIFY
code has been on the agenda for a complete rewrite for a long time now,
and I keep hoping pg_listener will go away entirely sometime soon.
I don't feel a need to go and fix a marginal performance issue there.
regards, tom lane
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
> I revised the patch according to the suggestion.
Applied with some mostly-cosmetic editorial work.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes: >> I revised the patch according to the suggestion. > > Applied with some mostly-cosmetic editorial work. > > regards, tom lane Awesome, congrats. ...Robert
Hi, On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes: >> I revised the patch according to the suggestion. > > Applied with some mostly-cosmetic editorial work. Thank you very much! Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center