| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Latches, signals, and waiting |
| Date: | 2010-09-16 04:47:52 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimM0xUu87Ctg-1z8t4gnTRXMei9AQRkqYO9jajt@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> So I'm wondering if we couldn't eliminate the five-second sleep
> requirement here too.
That would make the shutdown time longer since startup process currently
cannot respond to SIGTERM and SIGHUP immediately. To avoid this, I think
that we should change the signal handlers of startup process so that they
call WakeupRecovery.
The attached patch makes StartupProcSigHupHandler and StartupProcShutdownHandler
call WakeupRecovery.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| signal_handler_wakeup_recovery_v1.patch | application/octet-stream | 528 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-09-16 05:05:06 | Re: Latches, signals, and waiting |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-09-16 04:23:19 | Re: Latches, signals, and waiting |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-09-16 05:05:06 | Re: Latches, signals, and waiting |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-09-16 04:23:19 | Re: Latches, signals, and waiting |