Re: Allow interrupts on waiting standby
От | Tsunakawa, Takayuki |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Allow interrupts on waiting standby |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F6BE470@G01JPEXMBYT05 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Allow interrupts on waiting standby (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael.paquier@gmail.com] > Oops, sorry for that, I quite mess up with this patch. The WaitLatch() call > should still have WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH so as it can leave earlier, but yes > I agree with your analysis that HandleStartupProcInterrupts() as this is > part of the redo work. Thank you, but did you remove WL_LATCH_SET from WaitLatch() intentionally? I understood you added it for startup processto respond quickly to events other than the postmaster death. Why don't we restore WL_LATCH_SET? I won't objectto not adding the flag if there's a reason. I'll mark this as ready for committer when I see WL_LATCH_SET added (optional) and you have reported that you did the followingtest cases: * Startup process vanishes immediately after postmaster dies, while it is waiting for a recovery conflict to be resolved. * Startup process vanishes immediately after "pg_ctl stop -m fast", while it is waiting for a recovery conflict to be resolved. * Startup process resumes WAL application when max_standby_{archive | streaming}_delay is changed from the default -1 toa short period, e.g. 10s, and "pg_ctl reload" is performed, while it is waiting for a recovery conflict to be resolved. > > Did Simon's committed patch solve the problem as expected? > > Does not seem so, I'll let Simon comment on this matter... Agreed. I guess his patch for earlier releases should work if CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() is replaced with HandleStartupProcInterrupts(). Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: