Re: Hot Standby, release candidate?

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 11:54 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> * Are you planning to remove the recovery_connections setting before
>> release? The documentation makes it sound like it's a temporary hack
>> that we're not really sure is needed at all. That's not very comforting.
>
> It has been requested and I agree, so its there. Saying it might be
> removed in future is no more than we do elsewhere and AFAIK we all hope
> it will be. Not sure why that is or isn't comforting.

Now that recovery_connections has a double-role, and does in the master
what the wal_standby_info used to do, the documentation probably should
be clarified that the whole parameter is not going to go away, just the
role in the master.

>> * You removed this comment from KnownAssignedXidsInit:
>>
>> - /*
>> - * XXX: We should check that we don't exceed maxKnownAssignedXids.
>> - * Even though the hash table might hold a few more entries than that,
>> - * we use fixed-size arrays of that size elsewhere and expected all
>> - * entries in the hash table to fit.
>> - */
>>
>> but AFAICS you didn't address the issue. It's referring to the 'xids'
>> array in TransactionIdIsInProgress(), which KnownAssignedXidsGet() fills
>> in without checking that it fits.
>
> I have ensured that they are always the same size, by definition, so no
> need to check.

How did you ensure that? The hash table has no hard size limit.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com