Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: incorrect handling of the timeout in pg_receivexlog
Date: 2012-05-10 14:51:14
Message-ID: CABUevEyd-dgx-EjCLjwyT2Gvsx+mBBMgresVEc7mqDa3O+jEKQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>> Argh. This thread appears to have been forgotten - sorry about that.
>>
>> Given that we're taling about a potential protocol change, we really
>> should resolve this before we wrap beta, no?
>
> Had a chat with Heikki about this, and we came to the conslusion that
> we don't actually have to fix it befor ebeta. Because pg_basebackup is
> going to have to consider 9.1 servers anyway, and we can just treat
> 9.2beta1 as being a 9.1 from this perspective.
>
> We still have to fix it, but it' snot as urgent :-)
>
> FWIW, the main plan we're onto is still to add the GUCs on new
> connections to walsender, so we have something to work with...

And taking this a step further - we *already* send these GUCs.
Previous references to us not doing that were incorrect :-)

So this should be a much easier fix than we thought. And can be done
entirely in pg_basebackup, meaning we don't need to worry about
beta...

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-05-10 14:58:26 Re: "pgstat wait timeout" just got a lot more common on Windows
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2012-05-10 14:44:17 Re: Draft release notes complete