Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Date: 2010-05-13 17:12:27
Message-ID: 4BEC32FB.90303@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 5/12/10 8:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think that would be a good thing to check (it'll confirm whether
> this is the same bug), but I'm not convinced we should actually fix it
> that way. Prior to 8.4, we handled a smart shutdown during recovery
> at the conclusion of recovery, just prior to entering normal running.
> I'm wondering if we shouldn't revert to that behavior in both 8.4 and
> HEAD.

This would be OK as long as we document it well. We patched the
shutdown the way we did specifically because Fujii thought it would be
an easy fix; if it's complicated, we should revert it and document the
issue for DBAs.

Oh, and to confirm: the same issue exists, and has always existed, with
Warm Standby.

--
-- Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://www.pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2010-05-13 17:14:55 Re: pg_upgrade code questions
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2010-05-13 17:00:00 quoting and recovery.conf