On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 11:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 11:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> The sinval queue is an *utterly* inappropriate > >> mechanism for such a thing. > > > To be honest, it did seem quite a neat solution. Any particular > > direction of thought you'd like me to pursue instead? > > I hadn't been following the discussion closely enough to know what the > problem is.
When we replay an AccessExclusiveLock on the standby we need to kick off any current lock holders, after a configurable grace period. Current lock holders may include some read-only backends that are idle-in-transaction. SIGINT, which is what the current patch uses, is not sufficient to dislodge the idle backends. So we need to send a signal to the idle backends and then have them react. We could use a multi-meaning approach for SIGUSR1 as we do for pmsignal, or ... -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
