On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 17:35 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Simon Riggs <sriggs(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
> > max_standby_delay = -1 option removed to prevent deadlock.
> This seems unacceptable to me. It means it's impossible to configure a
> reporting slave so it doesn't spuriously signal errors if your reports
> run too long.
> Recall that I am still of the opinion that the only reasonable default
> value for this parameter is actually -1. I don't think we should
> signal errors for correctly working systems unless the user requests
> them in some way.
What is your proposed way of handling buffer pin deadlocks? That will be
acceptable and working to some extent in the next week?
Wait forever isn't always a good idea, anymore, if it ever was.
Lots of things still on the TODO, if you are looking for a project.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: James William Pye||Date: 2010-01-23 20:28:18|
|Subject: Re: plpython3|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2010-01-23 20:12:26|
|Subject: Re: commit fests|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-01-23 20:39:53|
|Subject: Re: pgsql: In HS, Startup process sets SIGALRM when waiting for
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2010-01-23 17:35:28|
|Subject: Re: pgsql: In HS, Startup process sets SIGALRM when waiting for buffer pin.|