Re: Clean shutdown and warm standby

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Clean shutdown and warm standby
Date: 2009-05-28 14:41:36
Message-ID: 1243521696.24860.612.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 17:21 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > I don't think it does, please look again.
>
> Still looks ok to me. pgarch_ArchiverCopyLoop() loops until all ready
> WAL segments have been archived (assuming no errors).

No, it doesn't now, though it did used to. line 440.

> >> Ok, we're good then I guess.
> >
> > No, because as I said, if archive_command has been returning non-zero
> > then the archive will be incomplete.
>
> Yes. You think that's wrong? How would you like it to behave, then? I
> don't think you want the shutdown to wait indefinitely until all files
> have been archived if there's an error.

The complaint was that we needed to run a manual step to synchronise the
pg_xlog directory on the standby. We still need to do that, even after
the patch has been committed because 2 cases are not covered, so what is
the point of the recent change? It isn't enough. It *might* be enough,
most of the time, but you have no way of knowing that is the case and it
is dangerous not to check.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2009-05-28 14:47:47 Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2009-05-28 14:40:01 Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions