Hi, I revised the patch according to the suggestion.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Fujii Masao<masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Tom Lane<t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I think you're making things more complicated when they should be >> getting simpler. >> >> It strikes me that the current API of "pass the BackendId if known or >> InvalidBackendId if not" still works for processes without a BackendId, >> as long as you can tolerate a bit of extra search overhead for them. >> (You could reduce the search overhead by searching the array back to >> front.) So a new process index may be overkill. > > Yeah, this is very simple. I'll change the patch according to your suggestion. Done. >>> Umm... the patch should cover a notify interrupt which currently uses >>> SIGUSR2? >> >> Getting rid of the separate SIGUSR2 handler would definitely be a good >> proof of concept that the mechanism works for more than one use. > > OK. I'll change the patch as above. Done. But there is one issue; the extra search is always required to send a notify interrupt. This is because pg_listener doesn't have a backend ID and we cannot pass it to SendProcSignal. In order to solve this issue, we should newly add backend ID field into pg_listener? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
signal_multiplexer_0729.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
