From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Interruptible sleeps (was Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!) |
Date: | 2010-09-03 16:10:42 |
Message-ID: | 24193.1283530242@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> [ shrug... ] I stated before that the Hot Standby patch is doing
>> utterly unsafe things in signal handlers. Simon rejected that.
>> I am waiting for irrefutable evidence to emerge from the field
>> (and am very confident that it will be forthcoming...) before
>> I argue with him further. Meanwhile, I'm not going to accept anything
>> unsafe in a core facility like this patch is going to be.
> Oh. I thought you had ignored his objections and fixed it. Why are
> we releasing 9.0 with this problem again? Surely this is nuts.
My original review of hot standby found about half a dozen things
I thought were broken:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-05/msg00178.php
After a *very* long-drawn-out fight I fixed one of them
(max_standby_delay), largely still over Simon's objections. I don't
have the energy to repeat that another half-dozen times, so I'm going
to wait for the suspected problems to be proven by field experience.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-09-03 16:11:34 | Re: Streaming a base backup from master |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-09-03 16:09:04 | Re: Streaming a base backup from master |