From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Hot standby fails if any backend crashes |
Date: | 2012-02-04 16:05:15 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJ+S5X-Z6dsGsO_y6m_9LaJbuD98ed10Bj7LgRmUJjO8g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think saner behavior might only require this change:
>
> /*
> * Any unexpected exit (including FATAL exit) of the startup
> * process is treated as a crash, except that we don't want to
> * reinitialize.
> */
> if (!EXIT_STATUS_0(exitstatus))
> {
> - RecoveryError = true;
> + if (!FatalError)
> + RecoveryError = true;
> HandleChildCrash(pid, exitstatus,
> _("startup process"));
> continue;
> }
>
> plus suitable comment adjustments of course. Haven't tested this yet
> though.
Looks good, will test.
> It's a bit disturbing that nobody has reported this from the field yet.
> Seems to imply that hot standby isn't being used much.
There are many people I know using it in production for more than a year now.
Either they haven't seen it or they haven't reported it to us.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-02-04 16:11:43 | Re: BUG #6425: Bus error in slot_deform_tuple |
Previous Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2012-02-04 15:54:30 | Re: [v9.2] sepgsql's DROP Permission checks |