So what status are we on? Are we going to release 9.2.2 as it is?
Or withdraw current 9.2.2?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 2012-12-04 21:27:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So the upshot is that I propose a patch more like the attached.
>
>> Without having run anything so far it looks good to me.
>
> BTW, while on the theme of the pause feature being several bricks shy of
> a load, it looks to me like the place that it was added to the replay
> loop was less than sane as well. Presumably the purpose of a pause is
> to let you stop application of the WAL at exactly the current spot;
> but you can *not* do that midway through application of the record,
> and where it is is effectively that. As soon as we've updated
> xlogctl->replayEndRecPtr, we're committed to replay the record,
> because we can't guarantee that the controlfile minRecoveryPoint
> doesn't get pushed up to that point by buffer flush activity.
> So an abort here could leave the database in an unrestartable condition.
>
> I guess the idea of putting it there was to save one spinlock acquire,
> but I'm having a bit of a hard time believing that one spinlock acquire
> per WAL record means much. Still we could possibly preserve that
> attribute by moving the pause down to just after the update of
> xlogctl->recoveryLastRecPtr.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs