Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: testing hot standby

From: Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: testing hot standby
Date: 2010-04-13 16:08:08
Message-ID: x2v3073cc9b1004130908od41f2f91u3e0c4af3b4c24b69@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>
>> i will read it on the morning and the thread where it is, something
>> that seems strange to me is that the patch touch twophase.c and
>> twophase.h, why?
>
> When you start hot standby from an online checkpoint, the XIDs of any
> two-phase transactions are included in the running-xacts record, just
> like any other in-progress transactions. At a shutdown checkpoint, we
> know that no regular transactions are in-progress, but there can be
> transactions in prepared state, which need to be considered as
> in-progress in the standby, but there's no information about them in the
> shutdown record. So we scan pg_twophase to discover them.
>
>

ah! that makes sense... thanks

-- 
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-04-13 17:11:17
Subject: Re: Naming of new EXCLUDE constraints
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-04-13 16:06:18
Subject: Re: testing hot standby

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group