| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hot standby and b-tree killed items |
| Date: | 2008-12-21 08:19:25 |
| Message-ID: | 494DFC0D.4000108@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> A vacuum being replayed -- even in a different database -- could trigger the
>>> error. Or with the btree split issue, a data load -- again even in a different
>>> database -- would be quite likely cause your SELECT to be killed.
>> Hmm, I wonder if we should/could track the "latestRemovedXid" separately
>> for each database. There's no reason why we need to kill a read-only
>> query in database X when a table in database Y is vacuumed.
>
> What about shared catalogs?
True, vacuums on shared catalogs would affect read-only queries on all
databases.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2008-12-21 08:22:28 | Re: a small proposal for avoiding foot-shooting |
| Previous Message | Hitoshi Harada | 2008-12-21 06:04:06 | Re: Windowing Function Patch Review -> Standard Conformance |