Re: Hot Standby and query cancel

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Hot Standby and query cancel
Date: 2010-01-13 18:58:32
Message-ID: 201001131958.33006.andres@anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Simon,

On Wednesday 13 January 2010 19:24:22 Simon Riggs wrote:
> We've been chewing around query cancel on Hot Standby and I think things
> have got fairly confusing, hence a new thread.
Good idea.

> I enclose a patch that includes all the things that we all agree on so
> far, in my understanding
cool.

> * Recovery conflict processing uses SIGUSR1 rather than shmem per Tom,
> while holding ProcArrayLock per Andres
>
> * CONFLICT_MODE_ERROR throws ERROR when in a transaction, not idle and
> not in subtransaction, otherwise becomes CONFLICT_MODE_FATAL per Tom and
> other discussion
>
> * Recovery abort message has additional detail, per Heikki
>
> It doesn't include anything still under discussion, though is intended
> as a base upon which further patches can progress independently.

> I am still testing patch, so should be confident to commit tomorrow
> barring issues.
I have only looked at briefly because right now I dont have the time (going to
eat at a friends place...) but I think I spotted an issue:
The IsAbortedTransactionBlockState() check in RecoveryConflictInterrupt is not
correct right now because that returns true for TBLOCK_SUBABORT as well.
Wouldnt that mess with the case where were in a failed subxact and then
rollback only that subxact?

Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2010-01-13 19:02:11 PgEast CFP (second call)
Previous Message Sergej Galkin 2010-01-13 18:56:25 Re: NEED HELP !