Re: Is Recovery actually paused?

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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