Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEepm=2XSKf_zN2MGG=3UXqLQ242pCUVGE-e7+S7Rrmkd+B36w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process
Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Keep one postmaster monitoring pipe per process |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, I'd like to disentangle two related topics. For "I want PostmasterIsAlive() to go faster using signals on platforms that can support that", please see over here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/7261eb39-0369-f2f4-1bb5-62f3b6083b5e@iki.fi#7261eb39-0369-f2f4-1bb5-62f3b6083b5e@iki.fi For "I want to fix all the code that ignores the WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH event and then calls PostmasterIsAlive() every time through its loop, or fails to detect postmaster death at all", this is the thread (unless someone sees a reason to reentangle them). Here's a draft patch that does that. One contentious question is: should you have to opt *in* to auto-exit-on-postmaster death? Andres opined that you should. I actually think it's not so bad if you don't have to do that, and instead have to opt out. I think of it as a kind of 'process cancellation point' or a quiet PANIC that you can opt out of. It's nice to remove the old boilerplate code without having to add a new boilerplate event that you have to remember every time. Any other opinions? I'm not sure if the exit(1) vs proc_exit(1) distinction is important. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: