Re: [DOCS] max_worker_processes on the standby

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Petr Jelinek
Тема Re: [DOCS] max_worker_processes on the standby
Дата
Msg-id 56606BA9.1050606@2ndquadrant.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [DOCS] max_worker_processes on the standby  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: [DOCS] max_worker_processes on the standby
Список pgsql-hackers
On 2015-11-16 22:43, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I paraphrase Fujii Masao, who wrote:
>
>> 1. Start the master and standby servers with track_commit_timestamp enabled.
>> 2. Disable track_commit_timestamp in the master and restart the master server.
>> 3. Run checkpoint in the master.
>> 4. Run restartpoint in the standby after the checkpoint WAL record generated
>> 5. Restart the standby server.
>> 6. Enable track_commit_timestamp in the master and restart the master server.
>> 7. Disable track_commit_timestamp in the master and restart the master server.
>
>> What I think strange is that pg_last_committed_xact() behaves differently
>> in #2, #5, and #7 though the settings of track_commit_timestamp are same
>> in both servers, i.e., it's disabled in the master but enabled in the standby.
>
> Interesting, thanks.  You're right that this behaves oddly.
>
> I think in order to fix these two points (#5 and #7), we need to make
> the standby not honour the GUC at all, i.e. only heed what the master
> setting is.
>
>> 8. Promote the standby server to new master.
>>      Since committs is still inactive even after the promotion,
>>      pg_last_committed_xact() keeps causing an ERROR though
>>      track_commit_timestamp is on.
>>
>> I was thinking that whether committs is active or not should depend on
>> the setting of track_commit_timestamp *after* the promotion.
>> The behavior in #8 looked strange.
>
> To fix this problem, we can re-run StartupCommitTs() after recovery is
> done, this time making sure to honour the GUC setting.
>
> I haven't tried the scenarios we fixed with the previous round of
> patching, but this patch seems to close the problems just reported.
> (My next step will be looking over the recovery test framework by
> Michael et al, so that I can apply a few tests for this stuff.)
> In the meantime, if you can look this over I would appreciate it.
>

While this seems good, I'd code it slightly differently. I didn't like
the addition of new bool when it's not really needed. This brings the
question if we actually need the BootStrapCommitTs and StartupCommitTs
functions which really don't do much though.

--
  Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
  PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Greg Stark
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [RFC] overflow checks optimized away
Следующее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [RFC] overflow checks optimized away