| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Standby catch up state change |
| Date: | 2013-10-15 10:46:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20131015104611.GE5300@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-10-15 16:12:56 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't think that'd be a good idea - the "caughtup" logic is used to
> > determine whether we need to wait for further wal to be generated
> > locally if we haven't got anything else to do. And we only need to do so
> > when we reached the end of the WAL.
> >
> >
> Obviously I do not understand the logic caughtup fully, but don't you think
> the log message about standby having caught up with master while it hasn't
> because the sender has buffered a lot of data, is wrong ? Or are you saying
> those are two different things really ?
The message is logged when the state changes because the state is
important for the behaviour of replication (e.g. that node becomes
elegible for sync rep). I don't think delaying the message is a good
idea.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2013-10-15 10:59:25 | Re: WITHIN GROUP patch |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2013-10-15 10:42:56 | Re: Standby catch up state change |