From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily |
Date: | 2018-09-11 16:26:44 |
Message-ID: | 4997.1536683204@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-09-11 12:18:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Doesn't matter: startup would hit a lock conflict and cancel the pg_dump
>> to get out of it, long before approaching locktable full.
> Only if all that's happening in the same database, which is far from a
> given.
Well, there remains the fact that we've seen no field reports that seem
to trace to failure-to-acquire-AEL since 9.6 came out. So arguing that
this *could* be a probable scenario fails to comport with the available
evidence.
My inclination is to fix it as I've suggested and wait to see if there
are field complaints before expending a whole lot of effort to create
a better solution. In any case, I am not willing to create that better
solution myself, and neither is Robert; are you?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-09-11 16:33:11 | Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-09-11 16:20:37 | Re: StandbyAcquireAccessExclusiveLock doesn't necessarily |