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

Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
Date: 2012-11-07 17:22:04
Message-ID: 509A98BC.70107@vmware.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugspgsql-hackers
On 16.10.2012 15:31, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 15.10.2012 19:31, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On 15.10.2012 13:13, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I didn't remember that we've documented the specific structs
>>>> that we
>>>> pass around. It's quite bogus anyway to explain the messages the way we
>>>> do currently, as they are actually dependent on the underlying
>>>> architecture's endianess and padding. I think we should refactor the
>>>> protocol to not transmit raw structs, but use pq_sentint and friends to
>>>> construct the messages. This was discussed earlier (see
>>>>
>>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4FE2279C.2070506@enterprisedb.com),
>>>>
>>>> I think there's consensus that 9.3 would be a good time to do that
>>>> as we changed the XLogRecPtr format anyway.
>>>
>>> This is what I came up with. The replication protocol is now
>>> architecture-independent. The WAL format itself is still
>>> architecture-independent, of course, but this is useful if you want
>>> to e.g
>>> use pg_receivexlog to back up a server that runs on a different
>>> platform.
>>>
>>> I chose the int64 format to transmit timestamps, even when compiled with
>>> --disable-integer-datetimes.
>>>
>>> Please review if you have the time..
>>
>> Thanks for the patch!
>>
>> When I ran pg_receivexlog, I encountered the following error.
>
> Yeah, clearly I didn't test this near enough...
>
> I fixed the bugs you bumped into, new version attached.

Committed this now, after fixing a few more bugs that came up during 
testing. Next, I'll take a look at the patch you sent for adding 
timeouts to pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog 
(http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6C0B27F7206C9E4CA54AE035729E9C382853BBED@szxeml509-mbs)

- Heikki


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2012-11-07 17:24:23
Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-11-07 17:19:14
Subject: Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: magnusDate: 2012-11-07 17:47:03
Subject: BUG #7640: Testing bug reporting form
Previous:From: Pavan DeolaseeDate: 2012-11-07 17:21:03
Subject: Re: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "tableName_pk"

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