Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes, but I prefer XLogCtl->SharedRecoveryInProgress, which is the almost
>> same indicator as the boolean you suggested. Thought?
> It feels cleaner and simpler to me to use the information that the
> postmaster already collects rather than having it take locks and check
> shared memory, but I might be wrong. Why do you prefer doing it that
> way?
The postmaster must absolutely not take locks (once there are competing
processes). This is non negotiable from a system robustness standpoint.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
