Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1272911856.4161.35025.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 13:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I'm inclined to think that we should throw away all this logic and just > > have the slave cancel competing queries if the replay process waits > > more than max_standby_delay seconds to acquire a lock. > > What if we somehow get into a situation where the replay process is > waiting for a lock over and over and over again, because it keeps > killing conflicting processes but something restarts them and they > take locks over again? It seems hard to ensure that replay will make > adequate progress with any substantially non-zero value of > max_standby_delay under this definition. That is one argument against, and a reason why just one route is bad. We already have more than one way, so another option is useful -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: