Horton

Re: global / super barriers (for checksums)

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
Date: 2018-12-27T13:22:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Hi,

On 2018-12-27 13:54:34 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Finally getting around to playing with this one and it unfortunately
> doesn't apply anymore (0003).
> 
> I think it's just a matter of adding those two rows though, right? That is,
> it's not an actual conflict it's just something else added in the same
> place?

What do you mean with "rows" here? I see a bunch of trivial conflicts
due to changes in atomics initialization but nothing else?  And yes, I'd
not expect any meaningful conflicts.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Commits

  1. Online enabling and disabling of data checksums

  2. Extend the ProcSignal mechanism to support barriers.

  3. Partially deduplicate interrupt handling for background processes.

  4. Use PostgresSigHupHandler in more places.

  5. Move interrupt-handling code into subroutines.

  6. Use procsignal_sigusr1_handler for auxiliary processes.