Prev: 9.0b1: "ERROR: btree index keys must be ordered byattribute"
Next: [HACKERS] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn
From: Tom Lane on 10 May 2010 21:13 There's a complaint over here http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-05/msg00365.php about the archiver process not being very swift to adopt a new value of archive_command. This is because it only reacts to SIGHUP once per outer loop, ie, only after completing an archiving cycle. This is unhelpful in the example case, since the point of changing the command is to get it to finish archiving faster. How do people feel about adding /* Check for config update */ if (got_SIGHUP) { got_SIGHUP = false; ProcessConfigFile(PGC_SIGHUP); } to the inner loop in pgarch_ArchiverCopyLoop? This would allow a new archive_command value to be adopted immediately for the next copy attempt. (Hm, I guess we'd need to recheck XLogArchiveCommandSet as well...) The only objection I can see to this is that someone might have an archive command that depends on the identical command being issued for all files copied in a given archiving cycle. However, it's tough to see how such a dependency could arise, considering that the archive command isn't told about the start or finish of an archiving cycle. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |