From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, movead li <movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: recovery_target_action=pause with confusing hint |
Date: | 2020-03-31 10:19:48 |
Message-ID: | c1a033eb-10a5-13b0-c5f0-910c1f1499b0@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/03/31 18:59, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Hello
>
>> When I test the patch, I find an issue: I start a stream with 'promote_trigger_file'
>> GUC valid, and exec pg_wal_replay_pause() during recovery and as below it
>> shows success to pause at the first time. I think it use a initialize
>> 'SharedPromoteIsTriggered' value first time I exec the pg_wal_replay_pause().
>
> hm. Are you sure this is related to this patch? Could you explain the exact timing? I mean log_statement = all and relevant logs.
> Most likely this is expected change by https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=496ee647ecd2917369ffcf1eaa0b2cdca07c8730
Yeah, if the problem exists there, that would be my fault in the commit.
movead li, could you share the detail procedure to reproduce the issue?
I'm happy to investigate it.
> My proposal does not change the behavior after this commit, only changing the lines in the logs.
Yes. What's your opinion about the latest patch based on Robert's idea?
Barring any ojection, I'd like to commit that.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Advanced Platform Technology Group
Research and Development Headquarters
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2020-03-31 10:20:48 | Re: WAL usage calculation patch |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-03-31 10:16:48 | Re: WAL usage calculation patch |