From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pending patch: Re: HS/SR and smart shutdown |
Date: | 2010-03-31 09:58:57 |
Message-ID: | s2v3f0b79eb1003310258waa1bdf87n7de2f903a2a4bd37@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 17:48 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Please add some docs that a) explains what the patch does and b) notes
>> > any changes from behaviour in previous releases. ISTM this is a major
>> > change in behaviour.
>>
>> How about adding the following description into "17.5. Shutting Down
>> the Server"?
>>
>> If the server is in recovery, it waits for all of the read only
>> connections to be closed.
>
> You need to explain which mode you're talking about.
Smart Shutdown mode
> Adding minimal
> comments isn't my objective. We need good, useful documentation on every
> aspect that you add or change.
But the patch doesn't provide anything beyond:
>> If the server is in recovery, it waits for all of the read only
>> connections to be closed.
What additional explanation do you think is required?
>> And, where should the note be put in? AFAIK, the previous behavior
>> has not been documented anywhere.
>
>> > >From what I have seen, the comment about PM_WAIT_BACKENDS is incorrect.
>> > "backends might be waiting for the WAL record that conflicts with their
>> > queries to be replayed". Recovery sometimes waits for backends, but
>> > backends never wait for recovery.
>>
>> Really? As Heikki explained before, backends might wait for the lock
>> taken by the startup process.
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg02984.php
>
> Backends wait for locks, yes, but they could be waiting for user locks
> also. That is not "waiting for the WAL record", that concept does not
> exist.
How about the following change?
- * waiting for the WAL record that conflicts with their queries to be
- * replayed, recovery and replication need to remain until all read
+ * waiting until the startup process has released the lock that
+ * their queries are waiting for by replaying the WAL record,
+ * recovery and replication need to remain until all read
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2010-03-31 11:13:00 | Re: Problems with variable cursorname in ecpg |
Previous Message | Mike Lewis | 2010-03-31 09:08:22 | Re: Performance Enhancement/Fix for Array Utility Functions |