| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SIGQUIT and lost sequence WAL records |
| Date: | 2016-02-18 00:17:12 |
| Message-ID: | 29856.1455754632@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Do you think we should add a mention regarding SIGQUIT/stop-immediate
> regarding the fact that the application needs to commit the
> transaction that used nextval() with synchronous_commit = on to keep
> it consistent at recovery?
Meh. In the normal case where you just do "SELECT nextval()" and use the
result externally, there's going to be an implicit commit before you get
the data back. So I think you really have to be taking deliberate aim at
your foot in order to get burnt like this.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Venkata Balaji N | 2016-02-18 01:00:25 | Re: BUG #13962: transaction logs growing on standby |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-02-18 00:10:37 | Re: SIGQUIT and lost sequence WAL records |