On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:09 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 12:02 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> (1) >> >> >> Smart or fast shutdown requested in PM_STARTUP state always removes >> >> >> the backup_label file if it exists. But it might be still required >> >> >> for subsequent recovery. I changed your patch so that additionally >> >> >> the postmaster skips deleting the backup_label in that case. >> >> > >> >> > Don't like the name NeedBackupLabel seems too specific. That really >> >> > corresponds to "we were in recovery". We should have a couple of >> >> > super-states that correspond to am in recovery/am not in recovery so we >> >> > can drive it from that. >> >> >> >> ISTM that we can use XLogCtl->SharedRecoveryInProgress for that. >> >> Is this OK? >> > >> > That can change state at any time. Would that work? >> >> Yes. XLogCtl->SharedRecoveryInProgress is set to TRUE only when >> XLogCtl structure is initialized (i.e., XLOGShmemInit), and it's >> set to FALSE only at the end of recovery. > > You should be using RecoveryInProgress()
Isn't access to a bool variable atomic? And I think that postmaster should not take any locks since its deadlock would cause a fatal situation. No? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers