| From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption |
| Date: | 2011-05-11 10:34:58 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTimbnxK6rGX96XcZ_ta18fZYt5OiDg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11 May 2011 09:54, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> If you're doing this Win32 specific, take a look at
> src/backend/port/win32/signal.c for an example.
>
> If you're not doing this win32-specific, I doubt we really want
> threads to be involved...
Well, that seems to be the traditional wisdom. It seems sensible to me
that each process should look out for postmaster death itself though.
Tom described potential race conditions in looking at ps output...do
we really want to double the number of auxiliary processes in a single
release of Postgres?
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-05-11 10:42:05 | Re: Process wakeups when idle and power consumption |
| Previous Message | Szymon Guz | 2011-05-11 10:20:25 | Re: potential bug in trigger with boolean params |