Re: replication slot restart_lsn initialization

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im>
Cc: "Duran, Danilo" <danilod(at)amazon(dot)com>, "robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: replication slot restart_lsn initialization
Date: 2015-06-10 15:36:04
Message-ID: 20150610153604.GG10551@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-06-10 08:24:23 -0700, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > That doesn't look right to me. Why is this code logging a standby
> > snapshot for physical slots?
> >
>
> This is the new function I referred to above. The logging of the snapshot
> is in 'not RecoveryInProgress()' case, meaning it's running in primary and
> not in a standby.

It's still done uselessly for physical slots?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-06-10 15:43:50 Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-06-10 15:34:44 Re: s_lock() seems too aggressive for machines with many sockets