On 22 November 2016 at 17:49, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>> > Yeah, I definitely don't think it's as simple as just using
>> > procsignal_sigusr1_handler as-is. I expect we'd likely create a new
>> > global IsWalSender and ignore some RecoveryConflictInterrupt cases
>> > when in a walsender, at lea
No that's not right.
At Tue, 22 Nov 2016 17:45:34 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote in
<20161122.174534.266086549.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp>
> Hello,
>
> At Tue, 22 Nov 2016 12:35:56 +0800, Craig Ringer
> wrote in
> > On 22 November 2016 at 11:35, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Hello,
At Tue, 22 Nov 2016 12:35:56 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote
in
> On 22 November 2016 at 11:35, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > At Mon, 21 Nov 2016 21:39:07 -0500, Robert Haas
> > wrote in
> >
> >> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Craig Ringer
> >> wrote:
> >> > I'm still
On 22 November 2016 at 11:35, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> At Mon, 21 Nov 2016 21:39:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
> in
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> > I'm still interested in hearing comments from experienced folks about
>> > whether it's sane to do this at
Hello,
At Mon, 21 Nov 2016 21:39:07 -0500, Robert Haas wrote
in
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > I'm still interested in hearing comments from experienced folks about
> > whether it's sane to do this at all, rather than have similar
> > duplicate signal handling for t
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I'm still interested in hearing comments from experienced folks about
> whether it's sane to do this at all, rather than have similar
> duplicate signal handling for the walsender.
Well, I mean, if it's reasonable to share code in a given sit
