Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Review: Hot standby

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: Hot standby
Date: 2008-11-28 18:00:39
Message-ID: 1227895239.20796.232.camel@hp_dx2400_1 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 12:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 11:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I hadn't been following the discussion closely enough to know what the
> >> problem is. 
> 
> > When we replay an AccessExclusiveLock on the standby we need to kick off
> > any current lock holders, after a configurable grace period. Current
> > lock holders may include some read-only backends that are
> > idle-in-transaction. SIGINT, which is what the current patch uses, is
> > not sufficient to dislodge the idle backends.
> 
> Hm.  People have complained of that fact from time to time in normal
> usage as well.  Should we simply change SIGINT handling to allow it to
> cancel an idle transaction?

Yes, that is by far the best solution. ISTM many people will be happy.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2008-11-28 18:03:50
Subject: Re: Review: Hot standby
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-11-28 18:00:33
Subject: Re: A bug with ALTER TABLE SET WITHOUT OIDS in CVS HEAD

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group