From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hot Standby on git |
Date: | 2009-10-02 12:40:47 |
Message-ID: | 1254487247.17864.377.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 13:52 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > I'd rather just skip this for now. It's a minor case anyway and there's
> > nothing stopping writing their own RunningXactData records with a
> > function, if it is needed. I can add a function for that.
>
> That won't help. There's no way to have it in a right place wrt. the
> shutdown checkpoint if it's triggered by a user-callable function.
I notice that you avoid saying "yes, I agree we should remove the two
checks".
I will add code to make a shutdown checkpoint be a valid starting place
for Hot Standby, as long as there are no in-doubt prepared transactions.
That way we know there are no xids still running and no locks, without
needing to write a record to say so.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2009-10-02 13:37:58 | Re: CommitFest 2009-09, two weeks on |
Previous Message | Bernd Helmle | 2009-10-02 12:19:40 | Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default GUC settings |