| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| 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>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, 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: | 2010-05-19 12:21:29 |
| Message-ID: | 18461.1274271689@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Yes, but I prefer XLogCtl->SharedRecoveryInProgress, which is the almost
>> same indicator as the boolean you suggested. Thought?
> It feels cleaner and simpler to me to use the information that the
> postmaster already collects rather than having it take locks and check
> shared memory, but I might be wrong. Why do you prefer doing it that
> way?
The postmaster must absolutely not take locks (once there are competing
processes). This is non negotiable from a system robustness standpoint.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-19 12:49:55 | Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-19 12:13:03 | Re: BYTEA / DBD::Pg change in 9.0 beta |