From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | tushar11(dot)takate(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #16605: PostgreSQL recovery startup process waiting and blocking to application queries |
Date: | 2020-09-14 02:05:06 |
Message-ID: | 20200914.110506.66770378644216500.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
At Fri, 11 Sep 2020 22:18:27 +0530, Tushar Takate <tushar11(dot)takate(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> Hi Kyotaro ,
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this issue .
>
> Is it expected to arrive again with the below setting or is this the bug
> with this setting ?
>
> hot_standby_feedback= off and max_standby_streaming_delay -1 .
>
> Because we have kept this setting intentionally on this server to avoid the
> bloat and query termination after some set time .
The table bloat means there's long transactions on the
standby. hot_standby_feedback=off means such long transactions are not
protected from query-canceling from vacuumed rows on the primary. Even
if you had such a bloat by setting it to "on", that means you would
have the same bloat when such transactions were run on the primary.
When "resolving" such bloat by setting hot_s_f to off,
max_standby_streaming_delay=-1 makes things worse by inhibiting the
system from resolving the replication-stall.
> If it's the bug ,Request you to please let me know which version contains
> the fix for it or in which version fix is going to arrive .
No. AFAICS in this report, it's the designed behavior, or a
restriction of streaming replication.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/10/hot-standby.html
Since PG12 vacuum can run without file truncation (which leads to
access exclusive locks, see the vacuum_truncate table option) and only
the dead-lock might be avoidable by that. However even with the
option, replication doesn't advance until the causal transaction of
the replication-stall is gone.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/13/sql-createtable.html
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | yuanhang | 2020-09-14 03:23:57 | Re: BUG #16615: Cannot determine type of Date for "is null" expression |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-13 16:53:02 | Re: BUG #16272: Index expression can refer to wrong attributes if index is created via CREATE TABLE LIKE |