| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Date: | 2010-05-09 19:04:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1273431842.3936.1098.camel@ebony |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2010-05-09 at 16:10 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote:
> Adding pause/resume seems to introduce some non-trivial locking
> problems, though. How would you handle a pause request if the recovery
> process currently held a lock?
(We are only talking about AccessExclusiveLocks here. No LWlocks are
held across WAL records during replay)
Just pause. There are no technical problem there.
Perhaps a danger of unforeseen consequences, though doing that might
also be desirable, who can say?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-05-09 19:09:22 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-09 18:52:59 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |