Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)
in [PgSql]
|
From: Robert Haas on 17 May 2010 06:30 On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 21:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> I have what I believe is >> an equivalent but simpler implementation, which is attached. > > There's no code comments to explain this, so without in-depth analysis > of the problem, Masao's patch and this one its not possible to say > anything. > > Please explain in detail why its the right approach and put that in a > comment, so we'll understand now and in the future. The explanation is what I wrote in my previous email: a smart shutdown request during recovery should be treated the same way BEFORE the postmaster has been asked to start the background writer and AFTER the postmaster has been asked to start the background writer. I'll think up a suitable comment. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Simon Riggs on 17 May 2010 06:41 On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 06:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 21:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > >> I have what I believe is > >> an equivalent but simpler implementation, which is attached. > > > > There's no code comments to explain this, so without in-depth analysis > > of the problem, Masao's patch and this one its not possible to say > > anything. > > > > Please explain in detail why its the right approach and put that in a > > comment, so we'll understand now and in the future. > > The explanation is what I wrote in my previous email: a smart shutdown > request during recovery should be treated the same way BEFORE the > postmaster has been asked to start the background writer and AFTER the > postmaster has been asked to start the background writer. I'll think > up a suitable comment. I think we should review Masao's patch and ask him to make any changes we think are appropriate. There's no benefit to have multiple patch authors at one time. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 17 May 2010 06:55 On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 06:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 21:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> > >> >> I have what I believe is >> >> an equivalent but simpler implementation, which is attached. >> > >> > There's no code comments to explain this, so without in-depth analysis >> > of the problem, Masao's patch and this one its not possible to say >> > anything. >> > >> > Please explain in detail why its the right approach and put that in a >> > comment, so we'll understand now and in the future. >> >> The explanation is what I wrote in my previous email: a smart shutdown >> request during recovery should be treated the same way BEFORE the >> postmaster has been asked to start the background writer and AFTER the >> postmaster has been asked to start the background writer. I'll think >> up a suitable comment. > > I think we should review Masao's patch and ask him to make any changes > we think are appropriate. There's no benefit to have multiple patch > authors at one time. I did review his patch. It duplicates a few lines of logic and I found a way to avoid that, so I proposed it. That seems totally normal to me and I'm not sure what you're concerned about. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Simon Riggs on 17 May 2010 07:14 On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 06:55 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > I think we should review Masao's patch and ask him to make any changes > > we think are appropriate. There's no benefit to have multiple patch > > authors at one time. > > I did review his patch. It duplicates a few lines of logic and I > found a way to avoid that, so I proposed it. That seems totally > normal to me and I'm not sure what you're concerned about. I think we should concentrate efforts on just one patch: Masao's. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 17 May 2010 07:33
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 06:55 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > I think we should review Masao's patch and ask him to make any changes >> > we think are appropriate. There's no benefit to have multiple patch >> > authors at one time. >> >> I did review his patch. It duplicates a few lines of logic and I >> found a way to avoid that, so I proposed it. That seems totally >> normal to me and I'm not sure what you're concerned about. > > I think we should concentrate efforts on just one patch: Masao's. I understand that's your opinion, but you haven't explained why. My approach is simpler and Fujii Masao has already endorsed it. I would prefer that we focus on the technical issues here rather than who wrote the patch. I believe that my approach is better because it avoids duplicating code, which should reduce the chance of future bugs, since someone might conceivably update one chunk of code but not the other. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |