From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Excessive CPU usage in StandbyReleaseLocks() |
Date: | 2018-06-19 17:05:48 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ8gYvPgW1d0=wG1pNCVgEbTn_xXx1b22UGeRSQ14vUTA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2018-06-19 10:45:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> > This should be a PANIC imo.
>>
>> -1. As a developer, I would prefer PANIC. But as an end-user, I
>> would much rather have replay continue (with possible problems) than
>> have it stopped cold in its tracks with absolutely nothing that I as
>> the administrator can do to fix it. We should be building this
>> product for end users.
>
> Except that that just means the end-user will have an undebuggable
> problem at their hand. Which will affect them as well.
I agree, but my guess is that a PANIC will affect them more.
> And they could just restart with hot_standby=off, and restart again. Or
> even just restart without the GUC change, because that will rebuild the
> locking state from a later state / start becoming ready for query at a
> later stage.
True, but that can still be a sufficient operational problem.
I don't expect you to agree with my vote, but I stand by it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2018-06-19 17:06:08 | Re: Index Skip Scan |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-06-19 17:01:08 | Re: Excessive CPU usage in StandbyReleaseLocks() |