| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Hot standby |
| Date: | 2008-11-28 17:45:37 |
| Message-ID: | 27671.1227894337@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 11:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I hadn't been following the discussion closely enough to know what the
>> problem is.
> When we replay an AccessExclusiveLock on the standby we need to kick off
> any current lock holders, after a configurable grace period. Current
> lock holders may include some read-only backends that are
> idle-in-transaction. SIGINT, which is what the current patch uses, is
> not sufficient to dislodge the idle backends.
Hm. People have complained of that fact from time to time in normal
usage as well. Should we simply change SIGINT handling to allow it to
cancel an idle transaction?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2008-11-28 18:00:19 | "could not devise a query plan for the given query" |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-11-28 17:31:35 | Re: Review: Hot standby |