Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay
Date: 2010-07-03 19:17:48
Message-ID: 4C2F8CDC.5040702@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 03/07/10 18:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>  writes:
>> It would seem logical to use the same logic for archive recovery as we
>> do for streaming replication, and only set XLogReceiptTime when you have
>> to wait for a WAL segment to arrive into the archive, ie. when
>> restore_command fails.
>
> That would not do what you want at all in the case where you're
> recovering from archive --- XLogReceiptTime would never advance
> at all for the duration of the recovery.

Do you mean when using something like pg_standby, which does the waiting 
itself?

> It might be useful if you knew that it was a standby-with-log-shipping
> situation, but we have no way to tell the difference.

With pg_standby etc. you use standby_mode=off. Same with traditional 
archive recovery. In standby mode, it's on.

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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-07-03 19:34:37
Subject: Re: Keeping separate WAL segments for each database
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-07-03 18:03:05
Subject: Re: Why is vacuum_defer_cleanup_age PGC_USERSET?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group