| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time |
| Date: | 2017-06-26 20:23:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20170626202356.qybnpn5li2ke4ioc@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-06-26 16:19:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > The 10 fold increase in log spam during long PITR recoveries is a bit
> > unfortunate.
>
> > 9153 2017-06-26 12:55:40.243 PDT FATAL: the database system is starting up
> > 9154 2017-06-26 12:55:40.345 PDT FATAL: the database system is starting up
> > 9156 2017-06-26 12:55:40.447 PDT FATAL: the database system is starting up
> > 9157 2017-06-26 12:55:40.550 PDT FATAL: the database system is starting up
> > ...
>
> > I can live with it, but could we use an escalating wait time so it slows
> > back down to once a second after a while?
>
> Sure, what do you think an appropriate behavior would be?
It'd not be unreasonble to check pg_control first, and only after that
indicates readyness check via the protocol. Doesn't quite seem like
something backpatchable tho.
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2017-06-26 20:25:17 | Re: \set AUTOROLLBACK ON |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-26 20:19:16 | Re: Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time |