max_standby_delay considered harmful
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: Further Hot Standby documentation required
Next: [HACKERS] Streaming replication - unable to stop the standby
From: Josh Berkus on 12 May 2010 17:39 Simon, Robert, > He was also testing SR, yet you haven't breathed a word about that for > some strange reason. It didn't APPEAR like it was HS at all, not from > basic logic or from technical knowledge. So you'll have to forgive me if > I don't leap into action when you say something is an HS problem in the > future. Can we please chill out on this some? Especially since we now have an actual reproduceable bug? Simon, it's natural for people to come to you because you are knowledgeable and responsive. You should take it as a compliment. -- -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://www.pgexperts.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: "Joshua D. Drake" on 12 May 2010 17:40 On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 22:34 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 14:43 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > I thought that it > > would be a good idea for Simon to look at it because, on the surface, > > it APPEARS to have something to do with Hot Standby, since that's what > > Stefan was testing when he found it. > > He was also testing SR, yet you haven't breathed a word about that for > some strange reason. It didn't APPEAR like it was HS at all, not from > basic logic or from technical knowledge. So you'll have to forgive me if > I don't leap into action when you say something is an HS problem in the > future. Simon, with respect -- knock it off. Robert gave a very reasonable response. He is just trying to help. Relax man. Joshua Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering -- 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 12 May 2010 18:47 On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(a)2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 14:43 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> I thought that it >> would be a good idea for Simon to look at it because, on the surface, >> it APPEARS to have something to do with Hot Standby, since that's what >> Stefan was testing when he found it. > > He was also testing SR, yet you haven't breathed a word about that for > some strange reason. It didn't APPEAR like it was HS at all, not from > basic logic or from technical knowledge. So you'll have to forgive me if > I don't leap into action when you say something is an HS problem in the > future. Well, the original subject line of the report had mentioned SR only, but I had a specific theory about what might be happening that was related to the operation of HS. You've said that you think my guess is incorrect, and that's very possible, but until we actually find and fix the bug we're all just guessing. I wasn't intending to cast aspersions on your code. -- 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: Fujii Masao on 12 May 2010 22:46 On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I am wondering if we are not correctly handling the case where we get > a shutdown request while we are still in the PM_STARTUP state. It > looks like we might go ahead and switch to PM_RECOVERY and then > PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT without noticing the shutdown. There is some > logic to handle the shutdown when the startup process exits, but if > the startup process never exits it looks like we might get stuck. Right. I reported this problem and submitted the patch before. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-04/msg00592.php Stefan, Could you check whether the patch fixes the problem you encountered? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- 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 12 May 2010 23:07
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> I am wondering if we are not correctly handling the case where we get >> a shutdown request while we are still in the PM_STARTUP state. It >> looks like we might go ahead and switch to PM_RECOVERY and then >> PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT without noticing the shutdown. There is some >> logic to handle the shutdown when the startup process exits, but if >> the startup process never exits it looks like we might get stuck. > > Right. I reported this problem and submitted the patch before. > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-04/msg00592.php Sorry we missed that. > Stefan, > Could you check whether the patch fixes the problem you encountered? I think that would be a good thing to check (it'll confirm whether this is the same bug), but I'm not convinced we should actually fix it that way. Prior to 8.4, we handled a smart shutdown during recovery at the conclusion of recovery, just prior to entering normal running. I'm wondering if we shouldn't revert to that behavior in both 8.4 and HEAD. -- 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 |