From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How should the waiting backends behave in sync rep? |
Date: | 2011-03-09 17:06:02 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimDUiRrrWzZ2ZXWSRfeP5tHm9PGmpp6zfqaFpte@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> How should the backends waiting for replication behave when
> synchrnous_standby_names
> is set to '' and the configuration file is reloaded? Now they keep
> waiting for the ACK from the
> standby. But I think that it's more natural for them to get out of the
> wait state and complete
> the transaction in that case. If we'll change them in that way, we
> would no longer need
> something like "pg_ctl standalone" which I mentioned in another thread. Thought?
I think so. Looking at assign_synchronous_standby_names, the
following code just looks wrong:
if (doit && list_length(elemlist) > 0)
sync_standbys_defined = true;
Once sync_standbys_defined becomes true, there's no way for it to ever
become false again. That can't be right. That means that if you
disable sync rep by zeroing out synchronous_standby_names, backends
that already existed at the time you made the change will continue to
act as though sync rep is enabled until they exit.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-03-09 17:30:49 | Re: wrap alpha4 tomorrow ~9am Eastern (was: Alpha4 release blockers) |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-09 17:00:46 | Re: Update of replication/README |