Bruce Momjian wrote:
Actually, this is the current state of this issue.
Right, please comment on this. To recall, it uses shared memory for a
"switch to next logfile name" flag, which can't cause harm in case of
shmem corruption, and a postmaster opened filehandle (kept open) to a
dummy file
Actually, this is the current state of this issue.
---
Andreas Pflug wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>>Answering my own question, the distribution of the current logfile
Tom Lane wrote:
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Answering my own question, the distribution of the current logfile
name could be done trough a file handle.
would you mind commenting on my suggestion so I can continue on that topic?
There is no portable way to redistribu
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Answering my own question, the distribution of the current logfile
>> name could be done trough a file handle.
> would you mind commenting on my suggestion so I can continue on that topic?
There is no portable way to redistribute a file handle.
Andreas Pflug wrote:
Andreas Pflug wrote:
We agreed long ago that the
postmaster should never depend on the correctness of any shared memory
data structure; but this patch would make it do so.
I understand that, so what's the suggested way to store data common
for all backends?
Answering my o
Andreas Pflug wrote:
We agreed long ago that the
postmaster should never depend on the correctness of any shared memory
data structure; but this patch would make it do so.
I understand that, so what's the suggested way to store data common
for all backends?
Answering my own question, the dist
Tom Lane wrote:
I'll repeat what I said in response to your other posting:
Hm? I never posted something with shared mem usage before, what do you mean?
This uses a shared memory area with no lock, which seems a bad design;
AFAICS there should be no lock necessary.
We agreed long ago that the
Andreas Pflug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom doesn't like returning the server's logfile using a pgsql function
> unless logfile rotation is implemented, so here it is.
I'll repeat what I said in response to your other posting:
This uses a shared memory area with no lock, which seems a bad des
