| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age inconsistently applied on replicas |
| Date: | 2020-04-03 23:25:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzmZOwcc3m-d+E9Q-h24gJqm2suUvuNAWnLC5_5=f8q8_w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 4:18 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> OTOH, I wonder if it's possible that vacuum_defer_cleanup_age was
> deliberately intended to affect the behavior of
> XLogWalRcvSendHSFeedback(), which is probably one of the most common
> reasons why GetOldestXmin() is called on standbys.
Pressed "send" too soon. vacuum_defer_cleanup_age *doesn't* get
applied when recovery is in progress, so that definitely can't be
true.
Another hint that vacuum_defer_cleanup_age is only really supposed to
be used on the primary is the fact that it appears under "18.6.1.
Master Server" in the 9.1 docs.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikita Glukhov | 2020-04-03 23:26:06 | Re: Ltree syntax improvement |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-04-03 23:18:32 | Re: vacuum_defer_cleanup_age inconsistently applied on replicas |