| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
| Date: | 2011-03-01 06:25:42 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=f-9i_vXqFgA4BhR1y2o62h=4oV=F=SEuhpSZH@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 18:40 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> > SyncRepReleaseWaiters should be called when walsender exits. Otherwise,
>> > if the standby crashes while a transaction is waiting for replication,
>> > it waits infinitely.
>>
>> Will think on this.
>
> The behaviour seems correct to me:
>
> If allow_standalone_primary = off then you wish to wait forever (at your
> request...)
No, I've never wished wait-forever option for now. I'd like to make
the primary work alone when there is no connected standby, for
high-availability.
> If allow_standalone_primary = on then we sit and wait until we hit
> client timeout, which occurs even after last standby has gone.
In that case, why do backends need to wait until the timeout occurs?
We can make those backends resume their transaction as soon as
the last standby has gone. No?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2011-03-01 06:51:59 | Re: Sync Rep v17 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-01 04:29:46 | Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies |