From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items |
Date: | 2010-04-06 14:36:39 |
Message-ID: | 4BBB46F7.8050005@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>> * Add the GUC parameter to specify the maximum number of log file segments held in pg_xlog directory to send to the standby server. Which is useful to avoid disk full in the primary.
>> Not only to avoid disk full in primary but also to make it feasible to
>> use streaming replication without archiving. It's a small change, we
>> should do it.
>
> Do we have a working patch?
No.
>>> * Redefine smart shutdown in standby mode?
>> Drop. Too big a change at this point.
>
> We have a working patch for this - I want to commit it. I don't think
> it's a big change, and the current behavior is extremely pathological.
Oh, ok. I didn't look at the latest patch, if it looks good to you, fine
with me.
>>> * If standby_mode is enabled, and neither primary_conninfo nor restore_command are set, the standby would get stuck.
>> It's not really stuck, it will replay any WAL files you drop into
>> pg_xlog. I concur with Robert Haas though that it shouldn't print the
>> message to the log every few seconds. It should print a message the
>> first time it hits the end of WAL, but subsequent messages should be
>> suppressed until some progress has been made.
>
> Any idea how to implement this?
I'll take a look. It shouldn't be too hard.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-04-06 14:48:55 | Re: pending patch: Re: Streaming replication and pg_xlogfile_name() |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-04-06 14:28:56 | Re: SELECT constant; takes 15x longer on 9.0? |