| From: | Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Multiplexing SUGUSR1 |
| Date: | 2009-01-07 16:53:04 |
| Message-ID: | 1199EE02-CEC5-4B57-8DDF-C2C8D4E1B439@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7 Jan 2009, at 09:47, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> It's required by the sync replication patch, but has no value
>> otherwise.
>
> Well, we have talked about allowing more signalling long-term, and
> this
> would accomplish that independent of the sync replication, so we might
> want to revisit this someday if it isn't included in sync replication.
I also needed this for the progress indicator patch. I used SIGQUIT
for the proof-of-concept patch but I wouldn't want to lose that signal
for real.
--
Greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-01-07 16:56:35 | Re: Do we still need constraint_exclusion? |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Saito | 2009-01-07 16:44:31 | Re: Solve a problem of LC_TIME of windows. |