Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1274273395.4620.138.camel@ebony обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered
harmful)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 08:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yes, but I prefer XLogCtl->SharedRecoveryInProgress, which is the almost > >> same indicator as the boolean you suggested. Thought? > > > It feels cleaner and simpler to me to use the information that the > > postmaster already collects rather than having it take locks and check > > shared memory, but I might be wrong. Why do you prefer doing it that > > way? > > The postmaster must absolutely not take locks (once there are competing > processes). This is non negotiable from a system robustness standpoint. Masao has not proposed this, in fact his proposal was to deliberately avoid do so. I proposed using the state recorded in xlog.c rather than attempting to duplicate that with a second boolean in postmaster because that seems likely to be more buggy. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: