Horton

Re: global / super barriers (for checksums)

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-12-19T19:57:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 1:38 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 2:54 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I'd either add a test (if we have some) or placeholder kind
> > initially. But I'd also be ok with going for either of the other
> > versions directly - but it seems harder to tackle the patches together.
>
> OK. I have committed 0001-0003 as I had mentioned last week that I
> intended to do. For 0004, I have replaced "sample" with "placeholder"
> and added comments explaining that this is intended to be replaced by
> the first real user of the mechanism. If there are no further
> comments/objections I'll go ahead with this one as well.

And, done.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

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.