From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Is Recovery actually paused? |
Date: | 2021-01-17 05:41:08 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-sf5p2G6JJa2LmeHBv9v0j9=xMc4TkV=qVmU80T=_3Wdw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 3:52 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 12:28 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > ---
> > + /* test for recovery pause if user has requested the pause */
> > + if (((volatile XLogCtlData *) XLogCtl)->recoveryPause)
> > + recoveryPausesHere(false);
> > +
> > + now = GetCurrentTimestamp();
> > +
> >
> > Hmm, if the recovery pauses here, the wal receiver isn't launched even
> > when wal_retrieve_retry_interval has passed, which seems not good. I
> > think we want the recovery to be paused but want the wal receiver to
> > continue receiving WAL.
>
> I had misunderstood the code and the patch, please ignore this
> comment. Pausing the recovery here is fine with me.
Thanks for the review Sawada-San, I will work on your other comments
and post the patch.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-01-17 05:57:48 | Re: Deleting older versions in unique indexes to avoid page splits |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-01-17 05:29:54 | Re: PoC/WIP: Extended statistics on expressions |