SEO
vBulletin Search Engine Optimization
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
05-02-2008, 05:06 AM
| ||||
| ||||
 Re: pg_postmaster_reload_time() patch George Gensure escribió: > I've done a quick write up for reload time reporting from the > administration TODO. I was a little paranoid with the locking, but > didn't want problems to occur with signals on the postmaster and the > read side. I'd say too much -- postmaster runs with signals blocked all the time (except during select()) so this is not necessary there. Regarding the locking on backends, I admit I am not sure if this is really a problem enough that you need a spinlock for it. Anyway we tend not to use spinlocks too much -- probably an LWLock would be more apropos, if a lock is really needed. (A bigger question is whether the reload time should be local for each backend, or exposed globally through MyProc. I don't think it's interesting enough to warrant that, but perhaps others think differently.) Lastly, I didn't read the patch close enough to tell if it would work on both the EXEC_BACKEND case and the regular one. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches      |
|
05-05-2008, 05:52 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: pg_postmaster_reload_time() patch On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 12:58 PM, George Gensure <werkt0@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > > > George Gensure escribió: > > > > > > > I've done a quick write up for reload time reporting from the > > > administration TODO. I was a little paranoid with the locking, but > > > didn't want problems to occur with signals on the postmaster and the > > > read side. > > > > I'd say too much -- postmaster runs with signals blocked all the time > > (except during select()) so this is not necessary there. > > > > Regarding the locking on backends, I admit I am not sure if this is > > really a problem enough that you need a spinlock for it. Anyway we tend > > not to use spinlocks too much -- probably an LWLock would be more > > apropos, if a lock is really needed. (A bigger question is whether the > > reload time should be local for each backend, or exposed globally > > through MyProc. I don't think it's interesting enough to warrant that, > > but perhaps others think differently.) > > > > Lastly, I didn't read the patch close enough to tell if it would workon > > both the EXEC_BACKEND case and the regular one. > > > > -- > > Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ > > The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. > > > > I've reworked the patch in response to comments. > > The new function name is pg_conf_load_time() > I'm now using LWLocks only on the backend in order to protect the > PgReloadTime from mid copy reads. This may prove to be unnecessary, > since the code to handle HUPs seems to be executed synchronously on > the backend, but I'll let someone else tell me its safe before > removing it. > > -George > So if nobody's got any further objections, could this patch be applied? -George -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches |
|
05-05-2008, 05:52 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: pg_postmaster_reload_time() patch George Gensure escribió: > So if nobody's got any further objections, could this patch be applied? It's in the queue: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:May -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches |
|
05-05-2008, 05:53 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: pg_postmaster_reload_time() patch On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: > George Gensure escribió: > > > > So if nobody's got any further objections, could this patch be applied? > > It's in the queue: > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest:May > > -- > > > Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ > The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. > Thanks! -George -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches |
|
05-05-2008, 05:53 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: pg_postmaster_reload_time() patch "George Gensure" <werkt0@gmail.com> writes: > The new function name is pg_conf_load_time() Applied with revisions. > I'm now using LWLocks only on the backend in order to protect the > PgReloadTime from mid copy reads. This may prove to be unnecessary, > since the code to handle HUPs seems to be executed synchronously on > the backend, but I'll let someone else tell me its safe before > removing it. The locking was not only entirely useless, but it didn't even compile, since you'd not supplied a definition for "ReloadTimeLock". I took it out. I moved the setting of PgReloadTime into ProcessConfigFile. The advantages are (1) only one place to do it, and (2) inside ProcessConfigFile, we know whether or not the reload actually "took". As committed, the definition of PgReloadTime is really "the time of the last *successful* load of postgresql.conf", which I think is more useful than "the last attempted load". I also improved the documentation a bit and added the copy step needed in restore_backend_variables(). regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches |
Linear Mode
