Re: Sync Rep and shutdown Re: Sync Rep v19

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sync Rep and shutdown Re: Sync Rep v19
Date: 2011-03-16 05:43:50
Message-ID: AANLkTikwH3TTrLnyvamCwUf=M92H-b5+DRWJ9x6nKW0Z@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The problem is that there may be another backend B waiting on a lock
> held by A.  If backend A exits cleanly (without a PANIC), it will
> remove itself from the ProcArray and release locks.  That wakes up A,
> which can now go do its thing.  If the operating system is a bit on
> the slow side delivering the signal to B, then the client to which B
> is connected might manage to see a database state that shows the
> transaction previous running in A as committed, even though that
> transaction wasn't committed.  That would stink, because the whole
> point of having A hold onto locks until the standby ack'd the commit
> was that no other transaction would see it as committed until it was
> replicated.

The lock can be released also when the transaction running in A is
rollbacked. So I could not understand why the client wrongly always
see the transaction as commtted even though it's not committed.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2011-03-16 07:29:50 Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Basic Recovery Control functions for use in Hot Standby. Pause,
Previous Message Devrim GÜNDÜZ 2011-03-16 05:09:02 Re: Flex output missing from 9.1a4 tarballs?