Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication

From: "Fujii Masao" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Markus Wanner" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
Cc: "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Synchronous Log Shipping Replication
Date: 2008-09-11 12:45:49
Message-ID: 3f0b79eb0809110545w37c2080yc858a3a1d8658973@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:13 PM, Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> wrote:
>> Which signal should we use for the notification to the backend from
>> WAL sender? The notable signals are already used.
>
> I'm using SIGUSR1, see src/backend/storage/ipc/imsg.c from Postgres-R, line
> 232. That isn't is use for backends or the postmaster, AFAIK.

Umm... backends have already used SIGUSR1. PostgresMain() sets up a signal
handler for SIGUSR1 as follows.

pqsignal(SIGUSR1, CatchupInterruptHandler);

Which signal should WAL sender send to backends?

>> Or, since a backend don't need to wait on select() unlike WAL sender,
>> ISTM that it's not so inconvenient to use a semaphore for that
>> notification.
>
> They probably could, but not the WAL sender.

Yes, since WAL sender waits on select(), it's convenient to use signal
for the notification *from backends to WAL sender*, I think too.

Best regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Csaba Nagy 2008-09-11 12:53:59 Re: Transaction Snapshots and Hot Standby
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2008-09-11 12:45:35 Re: Transaction Snapshots and Hot Standby