| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Date: | 2010-05-12 19:51:25 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikfkVgcEZb4vt77gG78fL0AoU3_Y8O99FV391ef@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Excerpts from Stefan Kaltenbrunner's message of mié may 12 15:10:28 -0400 2010:
>
>> the startup process has the following backtrace:
>>
>> (gdb) bt
>> #0 0x00007fbe24cb2c83 in select () from /lib/libc.so.6
>> #1 0x00000000006e811a in pg_usleep ()
>> #2 0x000000000048c333 in XLogPageRead ()
>> #3 0x000000000048c967 in ReadRecord ()
>> #4 0x0000000000493ab6 in StartupXLOG ()
>> #5 0x0000000000495a88 in StartupProcessMain ()
>> #6 0x00000000004ab25e in AuxiliaryProcessMain ()
>> #7 0x00000000005d4a7d in StartChildProcess ()
>> #8 0x00000000005d70c2 in PostmasterMain ()
>> #9 0x000000000057d898 in main ()
>
> I just noticed that we have some code assigning the return value of
> time() to a pg_time_t variable. Is this supposed to work reliably?
> (xlog.c lines 9267ff)
I'
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-05-12 19:52:07 | Re: Tags missing from GIT mirror? |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-12 19:40:09 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |