Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make CheckRequiredParameterValues() depend upon correct
Date: 2010-04-26 14:46:35
Message-ID: 4BD5A74B.8090303@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Well, actually, now that I've looked at the patch I think it's starting
>> from a fundamentally wrong position anyway. Checkpoint records are a
>> completely wrong mechanism for transmitting this data to slaves, because
>> a checkpoint is emitted *after* we do something, not *before* we do it.
>> In particular it's ludicrous to be looking at shutdown checkpoints to
>> try to determine whether the subsequent WAL will meet the slave's
>> requirements. There's no connection at all between what the GUC state
>> was at shutdown and what it might be after starting again.
>>
>> A design that might work is
>> (1) store the active value of wal_mode in pg_control (but NOT as part of
>> the last-checkpoint-record image).
>> (2) invent a new WAL record type that is transmitted when we change
>> wal_mode.
>>
>> Then, slaves could check whether the master's wal_mode is high enough
>> by looking at pg_control when they start plus any wal_mode_change
>> records they come across.
>>
>> If we did this then we could get rid of those WAL record types that were
>> added to signify that information had been omitted from WAL at specific
>> times.
>
> <dons project manager hat>
>
> I notice that Heikki's patch doesn't include doing the above. Should
> we? If so, who's going to do it?

I'll give it a shot.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-04-26 17:10:18 pgsql: Add missing newlines in WPARSER_TRACE output.
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-04-26 14:22:37 pgsql: Reorder pg_stat_activity columns to be more consistent, using

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Erik Rijkers 2010-04-26 15:01:41 Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-04-26 14:41:03 Re: recovery_connections cannot start (was Re: master in standby mode croaks)