| From: | Brian E Gallew <geek+(at)cmu(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6 |
| Date: | 1999-06-07 18:39:32 |
| Message-ID: | emacs-smtp-532-14172-4580-723607@export.andrew.cmu.edu |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> ... Another idea
> is to send a signal to each backend that has marked a bit in shared
> memory saying it has written to a relation, and have the signal handler
> fsync all its dirty relations, set a finished bit, and have the
> postmaster then fsync pglog.
One other problem with signals is that things get complicated if
PostgreSQL ever moves to a multi-threading model.
--
=====================================================================
| JAVA must have been developed in the wilds of West Virginia. |
| After all, why else would it support only single inheritance?? |
=====================================================================
| Finger geek(at)cmu(dot)edu for my public key. |
=====================================================================
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jackson, DeJuan | 1999-06-07 18:50:07 | RE: [HACKERS] inet type & select |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-06-07 17:59:08 | Re: [HACKERS] Bug in LIKE ? |