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 Smet||Date: 2008-11-28 18:03:50|
|Subject: Re: Review: Hot standby|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-11-28 18:00:33|
|Subject: Re: A bug with ALTER TABLE SET WITHOUT OIDS in CVS HEAD |