| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fabrízio Mello <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Time-Delayed Standbys |
| Date: | 2013-12-13 11:58:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20131213115858.GI29402@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-12-13 11:56:47 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 12 December 2013 21:58, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Reviewing the committed patch I noted that the "CheckForStandbyTrigger()"
> > after the delay was removed.
> >
> > If we promote the standby during the delay and don't check the trigger
> > immediately after the delay, then we will replay undesired WALs records.
> >
> > The attached patch add this check.
>
> I removed it because it was after the pause. I'll replace it, but
> before the pause.
Doesn't after the pause make more sense? If somebody promoted while we
were waiting, we want to recognize that before rolling forward? The wait
can take a long while after all?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2013-12-13 12:34:34 | Re: SSL: better default ciphersuite |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-12-13 11:57:11 | Re: "stuck spinlock" |