| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, Jun Ishiduka <ishizuka(dot)jun(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp>, magnus(at)hagander(dot)net, heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Online base backup from the hot-standby |
| Date: | 2012-01-25 18:07:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+h-Kty2HDOntn5Om+XU_0N5ZN5uvXzSR0YXnzrEUBwQw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>> What happens if we shutdown the WALwriter and then issue SIGHUP?
>>
>> SIGHUP doesn't affect full_page_writes in that case. Oh, you are concerned about
>> the case where smart shutdown kills walwriter but some backends are
>> still running?
>> Currently SIGHUP affects full_page_writes and running backends use the changed
>> new value of full_page_writes. But in the patch, SIGHUP doesn't affect...
>>
>> To address the problem, we should either postpone the shutdown of walwriter
>> until all backends have gone away, or leave the update of full_page_writes to
>> checkpointer process instead of walwriter. Thought?
>
> checkpointer seems the correct place to me
Done.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-25 18:07:31 | Re: [v9.2] LEAKPROOF attribute of FUNCTION (Re: [v9.2] Fix Leaky View Problem) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-25 17:58:15 | Re: GUC_REPORT for protocol tunables was: Re: Optimize binary serialization format of arrays with fixed size elements |