Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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. |
=====================================================================

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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 ?