| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <antonin(dot)houska(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Backup throttling |
| Date: | 2014-01-16 21:26:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQRMvxG7kZoLSxs1ruLh6Oyg3auastjQvdRetcV+C+AJw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> slightly related: we should start to reuse procLatch for walsenders
> instead of having a separate latch someday.
+1. The potential for bugs from failing to account for this within
signal handlers seems like a concern. I think that every process
should use the process latch, except for the archiver which uses a
local latch because it pointedly does not touch shared memory. I think
I wrote a comment that made it into the latch header comments
encouraging this, but never saw to it that it was universally adhered
to.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-01-16 21:28:52 | ALTER TABLE ... SET TABLESPACE pg_default |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-01-16 21:13:33 | Re: Review: ECPG infrastructure changes part 1, was: Re: ECPG fixes |