Re: Standby catch up state change

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Standby catch up state change
Date: 2013-10-15 10:29:13
Message-ID: 20131015102913.GD5300@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2013-10-15 15:51:46 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> Should we not instead wait for the standby to have received all the WAL
> before declaring that it has caught up ? If a failure happens while the
> data is still in the sender's buffer, the standby may not actually catch up
> to the desired point contrary to the LOG message displayed on the master.

I don't think that'd be a good idea - the "caughtup" logic is used to
determine whether we need to wait for further wal to be generated
locally if we haven't got anything else to do. And we only need to do so
when we reached the end of the WAL.

Also, we'd have to reset caughtup everytime we send data (in
XLogSend()), that'd be horrible.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavan Deolasee 2013-10-15 10:42:56 Re: Standby catch up state change
Previous Message Pavan Deolasee 2013-10-15 10:21:46 Standby catch up state change