| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, sk(at)zsrv(dot)org, michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |
| Date: | 2020-03-31 22:07:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20200331220749.GA10008@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Mar-31, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think we should kill(SIGTERM) the walsender using the slot (slot->active_pid),
> then acquire the slot and set it to some state indicating that it is now
> useless, no longer reserving WAL; so when the walsender is restarted, it
> will find the slot cannot be used any longer.
Ah, I see ioguix already pointed this out and the response was that the
walsender stops by itself. Hmm. I suppose this works too ... it seems
a bit fragile, but maybe I'm too sensitive. Do we have other opinions
on this point?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-03-31 22:35:32 | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-03-31 22:02:57 | Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots |