| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |
| Date: | 2011-03-02 04:54:11 |
| Message-ID: | 5233.1299041651@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
> Dumb question: Is this something that could be solved by having the postmaster track this information in it's local memory and make it available via a variable-sized IPC mechanism, such as a port or socket? That would eliminate the need to clean things up after a crash; I'm not sure if there would be other benefits.
Involving the postmaster in this is entirely *not* reasonable. The
postmaster cannot do anything IPC-wise that the stats collector couldn't
do, and every additional function we load onto the postmaster is another
potential source of unrecoverable database-wide failures. The PM is
reliable only because it doesn't do much.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rumko | 2011-03-02 08:10:50 | Re: Porting PostgreSQL to DragonFly BSD |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2011-03-02 02:28:06 | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |