Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch
Date: 2011-02-15 22:46:09
Message-ID: AANLkTikROUuWYQOLXLW33ETwnywK6Nz_nJcf3LmVBtTe@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Looks pretty good to me, though I haven't tested it.  I like some of
>> the safety valves you put in there, but I don't understand this part
>
> Reworked logic covering all feedback, plus tests, plus docs.
>
> Last comments before commit please.

What happens if someone has hot_standby_feedback on and then turns it
off? I think in XLogWalRcvSendReply() you need

if (hot_standby_feedback)
{
stuff
}
else
{
reply_message.xmin = InvaidXID;
reply_message.epoch = 0; /* or something */
}

Also this part looks kludgy to me:

+ GetNextXidAndEpoch(&nextXid, &nextEpoch);
+ if (nextXid < reply_message.xmin)
+ nextEpoch--;

How about introducing a GetOldestXminAndEpoch function instead?

Would it make sense to avoid grabbing the ProcArrayLock except when we
truly need to update MyProc->xmin? ProcessStandbyReplyMessage gets
called a lot...

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bernd Helmle 2011-02-15 23:00:06 Re: Debian readline/libedit breakage
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-02-15 22:01:25 Re: Extensions vs PGXS' MODULE_PATHNAME handling