Re: Hot standby, conflict resolution

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot standby, conflict resolution
Date: 2009-01-25 16:19:33
Message-ID: 1232900373.2327.1462.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 21:30 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:

> Ok, then I think we have a little race condition. The startup process
> doesn't get any reply indicating that the target backend has
> processed
> the SIGINT and set the cached conflict LSN. The target backend might
> move ahead using the old LSN for a little while, even though the
> startup
> process has already gone ahead and replayed a vacuum record.
>
> Another tiny issue is that it looks like a new conflict LSN always
> overwrites the old one. But you should always use the oldest
> conflicted
> LSN in the checks, not the newest.

That makes it easier, because it is either not set, or it is set and
does not need to be reset as new conflict LSNs appear.

I can see a simple scheme emerging, which I will detail tomorrow
morning.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-01-25 16:47:11 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2009-01-25 16:15:35 Re: Hot standby, dropping a tablespace