Tomonari Katsumata writes:
> Thank you for explanation about it.
> I've understood that it is intended thing.
> Sorry to bother you.
No, actually it's a good thing you brought it up, because we're now
reconsidering whether that patch was a good idea or not ...
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql
Hi,
Thank you for explanation about it.
I've understood that it is intended thing.
Sorry to bother you.
regards,
(2012/06/07 2:05), Tom Lane wrote:
> katsumata.tomon...@po.ntts.co.jp writes:
>> Now I'm testing the behavior of checkpointer,
>> and I found a difference with PostgreSQL9.1 behavior
katsumata.tomon...@po.ntts.co.jp writes:
> Now I'm testing the behavior of checkpointer,
> and I found a difference with PostgreSQL9.1 behavior.
> When I send SIGINT signal to writer process on PostgreSQL9.1,
> writer process starts checkpoint.
> But, when I send SIGINT signal to checkpointer on
