| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: walsender & parallelism |
| Date: | 2017-06-01 03:56:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YFFGwu+2NJvneE=PtmgvV72kk0Tm=o=-+P5SugvYPYjRg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1 June 2017 at 11:51, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Unifying the signal handling and query processing further seems like a
> good idea, but the patches are pretty involved, so I suggest to put them
> into the next commit fest.
I had a quick look a the idea of just getting rid of walsenders as a
specific entity. Making them normal backends wherever possible. But it
starts running into trouble when you're allowing walsenders to stay
alive well into postmaster shutdown when normal backends are
terminated, so there's probably going to be a need for more ongoing
separation than I'd really like to stop walsenders doing things they
can't safely do during shutdown.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-06-01 04:00:33 | Re: Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-06-01 03:54:03 | Re: walsender & parallelism |