| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Snapshot synchronization, again... |
| Date: | 2011-03-03 23:52:58 |
| Message-ID: | 2C44F95C-C135-4F79-AB35-2F9E73181F73@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mar 1, 2011, at 10:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> writes:
>> Dumb question: Is this something that could be solved by having the postmaster track this information in it's local memory and make it available via a variable-sized IPC mechanism, such as a port or socket? That would eliminate the need to clean things up after a crash; I'm not sure if there would be other benefits.
>
> Involving the postmaster in this is entirely *not* reasonable. The
> postmaster cannot do anything IPC-wise that the stats collector couldn't
> do, and every additional function we load onto the postmaster is another
> potential source of unrecoverable database-wide failures. The PM is
> reliable only because it doesn't do much.
Makes sense. Doesn't have to be the postmaster; it could be some other process.
Anyway, I just wanted to throw the idea out as food for thought. I don't know if it'd be better or worse than temp files...
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-04 00:01:50 | Re: Quick Extensions Question |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2011-03-03 23:49:17 | Re: ALTER TABLE deadlock with concurrent INSERT |