On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 15/09/10 16:55, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> So I'm wondering if we couldn't eliminate the five-second sleep >> requirement here too. It's problematic anyhow, since somebody looking >> for energy efficiency will still feel it's too short, while somebody >> concerned about fast failover will feel it's too long. > > Yep. > >> Could the >> standby triggering protocol be modified so that it involves sending a >> signal, not just creating a file? > > Seems reasonable, at least if we still provide an option for more frequent > polling and no need to send signal. > >> (One issue is that it's not clear what that'd translate to on Windows.) > > pg_ctl failover ? At the moment, the location of the trigger file is > configurable, but if we accept a constant location like "$PGDATA/failover" > pg_ctl could do the whole thing, create the file and send signal. pg_ctl on > Window already knows how to send the "signal" via the named pipe signal > emulation.
The attached patch implements the above-mentioned pg_ctl failover. Comments? Objections? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
pg_ctl_failover_v1.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
