| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful) |
| Date: | 2010-05-17 10:55:24 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinVAhk-D0_I8ljwZhKcJqzWMh3if3twcJ9IJK4G@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 06:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 21:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> >
>> >> I have what I believe is
>> >> an equivalent but simpler implementation, which is attached.
>> >
>> > There's no code comments to explain this, so without in-depth analysis
>> > of the problem, Masao's patch and this one its not possible to say
>> > anything.
>> >
>> > Please explain in detail why its the right approach and put that in a
>> > comment, so we'll understand now and in the future.
>>
>> The explanation is what I wrote in my previous email: a smart shutdown
>> request during recovery should be treated the same way BEFORE the
>> postmaster has been asked to start the background writer and AFTER the
>> postmaster has been asked to start the background writer. I'll think
>> up a suitable comment.
>
> I think we should review Masao's patch and ask him to make any changes
> we think are appropriate. There's no benefit to have multiple patch
> authors at one time.
I did review his patch. It duplicates a few lines of logic and I
found a way to avoid that, so I proposed it. That seems totally
normal to me and I'm not sure what you're concerned about.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-05-17 11:02:56 | Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful) |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-05-17 10:41:46 | Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful) |