From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Add support for temporary replication slots |
Date: | 2016-12-13 00:46:48 |
Message-ID: | 20161213004648.zww4z4rworue7kcg@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-12-12 19:40:37 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Yes, I've seen. The cleanup of slots is done in ProcKill(), I wonder,
> > since it's on_shmem_exit hook, and the pgstat_beshutdown_hook is as
> > well, maybe the pgstat_beshutdown_hook is called before ProcKill and the
> > query is lucky to hit right in between.
>
> Hm. That seems like a pretty bogus place to do it.
Well, that'd not be Pet[e]r's fault. Robert and I had some preexisting
slot cleanpucode there (which I'd like to consolidate btw).
> backend infrastructure is already gone by then, if I recall the ordering
> correctly. Maybe ShutdownPostgres would be a saner place; but it really
> depends on what you think the module layering is for this facility.
> I would definitely not think it is proc.c's responsibility, though.
Slots quite possibly can used by bgworkers, so I don't think
ShutdownPostgres would be right. I don't think there's a perfect place
for it atm, so it's ProcKill()...
- Andres
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-12-13 00:49:03 | Re: pgsql: Add support for temporary replication slots |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2016-12-13 00:42:48 | Re: pgsql: Add support for temporary replication slots |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-12-13 00:49:03 | Re: pgsql: Add support for temporary replication slots |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-12-13 00:45:13 | Re: PATCH: two slab-like memory allocators |