| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Synchronous replay take III |
| Date: | 2018-12-01 03:57:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20181201035705.GA1664@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 02:48:29PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 9:06 AM Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately, cfbot says that patch can't be applied without conflicts, could
>> you please post a rebased version and address commentaries from Masahiko?
>
> Right, it conflicted with 4c703369 and cfdf4dc4. While rebasing on
> top of those, I found myself wondering why syncrep.c thinks it needs
> special treatment for postmaster death. I don't see any reason why we
> shouldn't just use WL_EXIT_ON_PM_DEATH, so I've done it like that in
> this new version. If you kill -9 the postmaster, I don't see any
> reason to think that the existing coding is more correct than simply
> exiting immediately.
Hm. This stuff runs under many assumptions, so I think that we should
be careful here with any changes as the very recent history has proved
(4c70336). If we were to switch WAL senders on postmaster death, I
think that this could be a change independent of what is proposed here.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2018-12-01 06:12:05 | Re: make installcheck-world in a clean environment |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-12-01 01:48:29 | Re: Synchronous replay take III |