On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 17:27 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> And,, I found one bug ;) You seem to have wrongly removed the check
>> of max_wal_senders in SyncRepWaitForLSN. This can make the
>> backend wait for replication even if max_wal_senders = 0. I could produce
>> this problematic situation in my machine. The attached patch fixes this problem.
>
> There may be a bug, but that's not the fix.
>
> I spotted that issue myself in testing. I put in a protection to stop
> setting synchronous_standby_names if max_wal_senders is zero, with error
> message.
>
> Are you saying the committed version doesn't trigger that ERROR?

I changed synchronous_standby_names after startup and reloaded the
configuration file. So I didn't encounter such an error message.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

• Re: pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication. at 2011-03-07 09:20:07 from Simon Riggs

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2011-03-07 09:30:35
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
Previous:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2011-03-07 09:20:07
	Subject: Re: pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2011-03-07 09:30:35
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
Previous:	From: Simon Riggs	Date: 2011-03-07 09:20:07
	Subject: Re: pgsql: Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.