| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: max_wal_senders must die |
| Date: | 2010-10-21 20:23:46 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTiki-9KcFHAMjBfE5C+OcfNVhxtivW=K_920_j5y@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10/20/10 6:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I find it impossible to believe that's
>> a good decision, and IMHO we should be focusing on how to make the
>> parameters PGC_SIGHUP rather than PGC_POSTMASTER, which would give us
>> most of the same benefits without throwing away hard-won performance.
>
> I'd be happy to accept that. Is it possible, though?
I sketched an outline of the problem AIUI here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg01348.php
I think it's possible; I'm not quite sure how hard it is.
Unfortunately, I've not had as much PG-hacking time lately as I'd
like...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-21 20:25:19 | Re: pg_rawdump |
| Previous Message | David Fetter | 2010-10-21 20:22:18 | Re: PostgreSQL and HugePage |