| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 20:20:58 |
| Message-ID: | 4D38992A.2070501@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 20.01.2011 22:15, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 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.
>
> How much using a latch here would help? Or be overkill?
A latch doesn't give you an acknowledgment from the backends that
they've received and acted on the guc change. You could use it as a
building block to construct that, though.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-01-20 20:30:04 | Re: exceptions not present in plpy with Python 3 |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-01-20 20:15:28 | Re: pg_basebackup for streaming base backups |