| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Date: | 2010-05-10 10:13:48 |
| Message-ID: | 3700B58D-452D-458D-983D-D68B7A91DA97@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On May 10, 2010, at 11:43 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> If you're not going to apply any more WAL records before shutdown, you
> could also just release all the AccessExclusiveLocks held by the startup
> process. Whatever the transaction was doing with the locked relation, if
> we're not going to replay any more WAL records before shutdown, we will
> not see the transaction committing or doing anything else with the
> relation, so we should be safe. Whatever state the data on disk is in,
> it must be valid, or we would have a problem with crash recovery
> recovering up to this WAL record and then starting up too.
Sounds plausible. But wouldn't this imply that HS could *always* postpone the acquisition of an AccessExclusiveLocks until right before the corresponding commit record is replayed? If fail to see a case where this would fail, yet recovery in case of an intermediate crash would be correct.
best regards,
Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kenichiro Tanaka | 2010-05-10 11:07:27 | make install fails due to "/bin/mkdir: missing operand" |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-05-10 10:03:13 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |