From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful) |
Date: | 2010-05-24 13:28:46 |
Message-ID: | 1274707726.6203.202.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 09:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 1:27 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>> Oh, right. How about allowing the postmaster only in PM_STARTUP,
> >>>> PM_RECOVERY, PM_HOT_STANDBY or PM_WAIT_READONLY state to invoke
> >>>> walreceiver? We can keep walreceiver alive until all read only
> >>>> backends have gone, and prevent unexpected startup of walreceiver.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that seems like something we should be checking, if we aren't already.
> >>
> >> I'll do that.
> >
> > Here is the updated version. I added the above-mentioned check
> > into the patch.
>
> This looks pretty reasonable to me, but I guess I feel like it would
> be better to drive the CancelBackup() decision off of whether we've
> ever reached PM_RUN rather than consulting XLogCtl.
That is exactly what XLogCtl tells us and why it is suggested for use.
> It just feels
> cleaner to me to drive all of the postmaster decisions off of the same
> signalling mechanism rather than having a separate one (that only
> works because it's used very late in shutdown when we theoretically
> don't need a lock) just for this one case.
>
> I could be all wet, though.
>
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2010-05-24 13:30:01 | Re: Exposing the Xact commit order to the user |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-24 13:26:12 | Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful) |