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

Re: Sync Rep v19

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Sync Rep v19
Date: 2011-03-19 02:28:33
Message-ID: AANLkTik9AAR+T5Y_Qeaop=c5XC4jmTTNm_AQnbEOpCWi@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:05 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> * Smart shutdown
>> Smart shutdown should wait for all the waiting backends to be acked, and
>> should not cause them to forcibly exit. But this leads shutdown to get stuck
>> infinitely if there is no walsender at that time. To enable them to be acked
>> even in that situation, we need to change postmaster so that it accepts the
>> replication connection even during smart shutdown (until we reach
>> PM_SHUTDOWN_2 state). Postmaster has already accepted the superuser
>> connection to cancel backup during smart shutdown. So I don't think that
>> the idea to accept the replication connection during smart shutdown is so
>> ugly.
>>
>> * Fast shutdown
>> I agree with you about fast shutdown. Fast shutdown should cause all the
>> backends including waiting ones to exit immediately. At that time, the
>> non-acked backend should not return the success, according to the
>> definition of sync rep. So we need to change a backend so that it gets rid
>> of itself from the waiting queue and exits before returning the success,
>> when it receives SIGTERM. This change leads the waiting backends to
>> do the same even when pg_terminate_backend is called. But since
>> they've not been acked yet, it seems to be reasonable to prevent them
>> from returning the COMMIT.
>>
>> Comments? I'll create the patch barring objection.
>
> The fast smart shutdown part of this problem has been addressed.  The

Ugh.  I mean "the fast shutdown", of course, not "the fast smart
shutdown".  Anyway, point is:

fast shutdown now OK
smart shutdown still not OK
do you want to write a patch?

:-)

> smart shutdown case still needs work, and I think the consensus was
> that your proposal above was the best way to go with it.
>
> Do you still want to work up a patch for this?  If so, I can review.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-03-19 02:40:53
Subject: Collations versus record-returning functions
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-03-19 02:25:10
Subject: Re: Sync Rep v19

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