On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Bernd Helmle <maili...@oopsware.de> wrote: > I had a look at this for the current CF and the patch looks reasonable to > me. Some testing shows that the changes are working as intended (at least, > the wal sender actually receives now signals from SignalSomeChildren() as > far as the DEBUG4 output shows).
Thanks for the review and test! > Maybe we should put in a small comment, why > we special case BACKEND_TYPE_ALL (following Tom's comment about expensive > shared memory access and IsPostmasterChildWalSender()). I added the following small comment. Patch attached. + /* + * Since target == BACKEND_TYPE_ALL is the most common case, + * we test it first and avoid touching shared memory for + * every child. + */ > Question for my understanding: > > While reading the small patch, i realized that there's no > BACKEND_TYPE_WALRECV or similar. If i understand correctly there's no need > to handle it this way, since there's only one wal receiver process per > instance? Yes. But also that's because walreceiver is an auxiliary process (like bgwriter and walwriter ..etc) but not a backend. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
signal-some-children-v4.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
