| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Improve handling of parameter differences in physical replication | 
| Date: | 2020-02-28 07:45:47 | 
| Message-ID: | 20200228074547.GE2688@paquier.xyz | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 02:37:24PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-02-27 11:13, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> Btw., I think the current setup is slightly buggy.  The
> MaxBackends value that is used to size shared memory is computed as
> MaxConnections + autovacuum_max_workers + 1 + max_worker_processes +
> max_wal_senders, but we don't track autovacuum_max_workers in WAL. 
>> Maybe this is because autovacuum doesn't work during recovery?
> 
> Autovacuum on the primary can use locks or xids, and so it's possible that
> the standby when processing WAL encounters more of those than it has locally
> allocated shared memory to handle.
Putting aside your patch because that sounds like a separate issue..
Doesn't this mean that autovacuum_max_workers should be added to the
control file, that we need to record in WAL any updates done to it and
that CheckRequiredParameterValues() is wrong?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-02-28 07:49:08 | Re: Improve handling of parameter differences in physical replication | 
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-02-28 07:33:18 | Re: Make mesage at end-of-recovery less scary. |