Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
---|
From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Revised signal multiplexer patch |
Date: | 2009-07-29 10:22:04 |
Message-ID: | 3f0b79eb0907290322n7828c461x4a329505030cb541@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I revised the patch according to the suggestion.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Fujii Masao<masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think you're making things more complicated when they should be
>> getting simpler.
>>
>> It strikes me that the current API of "pass the BackendId if known or
>> InvalidBackendId if not" still works for processes without a BackendId,
>> as long as you can tolerate a bit of extra search overhead for them.
>> (You could reduce the search overhead by searching the array back to
>> front.) So a new process index may be overkill.
>
> Yeah, this is very simple. I'll change the patch according to your suggestion.
Done.
>>> Umm... the patch should cover a notify interrupt which currently uses
>>> SIGUSR2?
>>
>> Getting rid of the separate SIGUSR2 handler would definitely be a good
>> proof of concept that the mechanism works for more than one use.
>
> OK. I'll change the patch as above.
Done.
But there is one issue; the extra search is always required to send a notify
interrupt. This is because pg_listener doesn't have a backend ID and we
cannot pass it to SendProcSignal. In order to solve this issue, we should
newly add backend ID field into pg_listener?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
signal_multiplexer_0729.patch | application/octet-stream | 30.9 KB |
From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Revised signal multiplexer patch |
Date: | 2009-07-31 17:40:23 |
Message-ID: | 24211.1249062023@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> But there is one issue; the extra search is always required to send a notify
> interrupt. This is because pg_listener doesn't have a backend ID and we
> cannot pass it to SendProcSignal. In order to solve this issue, we should
> newly add backend ID field into pg_listener?
Hmm. I'm not tremendously concerned about that --- the LISTEN/NOTIFY
code has been on the agenda for a complete rewrite for a long time now,
and I keep hoping pg_listener will go away entirely sometime soon.
I don't feel a need to go and fix a marginal performance issue there.
regards, tom lane
From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Revised signal multiplexer patch |
Date: | 2009-07-31 20:27:05 |
Message-ID: | 14150.1249072025@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I revised the patch according to the suggestion.
Applied with some mostly-cosmetic editorial work.
regards, tom lane
From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Revised signal multiplexer patch |
Date: | 2009-08-01 03:58:56 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070907312058j313b4417l31fe7892a5a7594c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I revised the patch according to the suggestion.
>
> Applied with some mostly-cosmetic editorial work.
>
> regards, tom lane
Awesome, congrats.
...Robert
From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Revised signal multiplexer patch |
Date: | 2009-08-03 04:18:53 |
Message-ID: | 3f0b79eb0908022118o19ad2e43w7a49fd1e1c9d54d9@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I revised the patch according to the suggestion.
>
> Applied with some mostly-cosmetic editorial work.
Thank you very much!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center