| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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(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: | 2010-05-10 11:53:52 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimWExb70BkMZWAUi0MpLiSHKRy3UkSkrajM1z6a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I already explained that killing the startup process first is a bad idea
> for many reasons when shutdown was discussed. Can't remember who added
> the new standby shutdown code recently, but it sounds like their design
> was pretty poor if it didn't include shutting down properly with HS. I
> hope they fix the bug they have introduced. HS was never designed to
> work that way, so there is no flaw there; it certainly worked when
> committed.
The patch was written by Fujii Masao and committed, after review, by
me. Prior to that patch, smart shutdown never worked; now it works,
or so I believe, unless recovery is stalled holding a lock upon which
a regular back-end is blocking. Clearly that is both better and not
all that good. If you have any ideas to improve the situation
further, I'm all ears.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-10 11:55:32 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
| Previous Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2010-05-10 11:51:47 | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |