From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Pg Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2 |
Date: | 2012-12-05 21:33:19 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMKmR-K1QitT=6+thw0+6UwpUq-owHqek+OWKDvQ95tm1w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On 5 December 2012 21:15, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 5 December 2012 18:48, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> On further thought, it seems like recovery_pause_at_target is rather
>>> misdesigned anyway, and taking recovery target parameters from
>>> recovery.conf is an obsolete API that was designed in a world before hot
>>> standby. What I suggest people really want, if they're trying to
>>> interactively determine how far to roll forward, is this:
>>> ...
>
>> Can't remember why we didn't go for the full API last time. I'll have
>> another go, in HEAD.
>
> That's fine, but the immediate question is what are we doing to fix
> the back branches. I think everyone is clear that we should be testing
> LocalHotStandbyActive rather than precursor conditions to see if a pause
> is allowed, but are we going to do anything more than that?
No
> The only other thing I really wanted to do is not have the in-loop pause
> occur after we've taken actions that are effectively part of the WAL
> apply step. I think ideally it should happen just before or after the
> recoveryStopsHere stanza. Last night I worried about adding an extra
> spinlock acquire to make that work, but today I wonder if we couldn't
> get away with just a naked
>
> if (xlogctl->recoveryPause)
> recoveryPausesHere();
>
> The argument for this is that although we might fetch a slightly stale
> value of the shared variable, it can't be very stale --- certainly no
> older than the spinlock acquisition near the bottom of the previous
> iteration of the loop. And this is a highly asynchronous feature
> anyhow, so fuzziness of plus or minus one WAL record in when the pause
> gets honored is not going to be detectable. Hence an extra spinlock
> acquisition is not worth the cost.
Yep, thats fine.
Are you doing this or do you want me to? Don't mind either way.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-05 21:38:17 | Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-05 21:15:38 | Re: PITR potentially broken in 9.2 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-05 21:34:32 | Re: Dumping an Extension's Script |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2012-12-05 21:29:01 | Re: Review: Extra Daemons / bgworker |