From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
Date: | 2011-03-03 08:25:30 |
Message-ID: | 1299140730.1974.7879.camel@ebony |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2011-03-03 at 02:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> > <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >> To achieve the effect Fujii is looking for, we would have to silently drop
> >> the connection. That would correctly leave the client not knowing whether
> >> the transaction committed or not.
>
> > Yeah, this seems to make more sense.
>
> It was pointed out that sending an ERROR would not do because it would
> likely lead to client code assuming the transaction failed, which might
> or might not be the case. But maybe we could send a WARNING and then
> close the connection? That would give humans a clue what had happened,
> but not do anything to the state of automated clients.
So when we perform a Fast Shutdown we want to do something fairly
similar to quickdie()?
Please review the attached patch.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
cancel_syncrep_at_shutdown.v1.patch | text/x-patch | 3.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-03-03 08:58:14 | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-03-03 08:16:29 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag was incorrectly set happend during repeatable vacuum |