| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |
| Date: | 2011-01-20 21:08:47 |
| Message-ID: | 21005.1295557727@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Dimitri Fontaine
> <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> I think that the basic problem with wal_level is that to increase it
>>> you need to somehow ensure that all the backends have the new setting,
>>> and then checkpoint.
>>
>> Well, you just said when to force the "reload" to take effect: at
>> checkpoint time. IIRC we already multiplex SIGUSR1, is that possible to
>> add that behavior here? And signal every backend at checkpoint time
>> when wal_level has changed?
> Sending them a signal seems like a promising approach, but the trick
> is guaranteeing that they've actually acted on it before you start the
> checkpoint.
Have the backends show their current wal_level in their PGPROC entries.
Sleep till they're all reporting the right thing, then fire checkpoint.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2011-01-20 21:24:02 | Re: Orphaned statements issue |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-01-20 21:05:15 | Orphaned statements issue |