On 13 May 2011 16:18, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not that thrilled with the "life sign" terminology, but don't
>> have a better idea right offhand.
>
> Yeah, that made no sense to me. Can't we just refer to detecting
> postmaster death?
Fine by
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not that thrilled with the "life sign" terminology, but don't
> have a better idea right offhand.
Yeah, that made no sense to me. Can't we just refer to detecting
postmaster death?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> Attached is a patch that builds upon Florian Pflug's earlier proof of
> concept program for monitoring the postmaster.
Cool. Like Robert, no time to review this in detail now, but ...
> How should I be handling the EXEC_BACKEND case?
Assuming that the open pipe descri
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached is a patch that builds upon Florian Pflug's earlier proof of
> concept program for monitoring the postmaster. The code creates a
> non-blocking pipe in the postmaster that child processes block on
> using a select() call. This all
Attached is a patch that builds upon Florian Pflug's earlier proof of
concept program for monitoring the postmaster. The code creates a
non-blocking pipe in the postmaster that child processes block on
using a select() call. This all occurs in the latch code, which now
monitors postmaster death, bu
