On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 08:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > 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.
Masao has not proposed this, in fact his proposal was to deliberately avoid do so. I proposed using the state recorded in xlog.c rather than attempting to duplicate that with a second boolean in postmaster because that seems likely to be more buggy. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
