Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection?

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection?
Date: 2006-05-19 16:25:31
Message-ID: 1148055931.2646.669.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2006-05-19 at 12:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Well, the fact that there's only one archiver *now* doesn't mean there
> > wasn't more than one when the problem happened. The orphaned archiver
> > would eventually quit.
>
> But, actually, nevermind: we have explained the failures you were seeing
> in the test setup, but a multiple-active-archiver situation still
> doesn't explain the original situation of incoming connections getting
> blocked.

Agreed.

--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2006-05-19 16:27:33 Re: [ADMIN] does wal archiving block the current client connection?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-05-19 16:20:45 Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2006-05-19 16:25:44 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-05-19 16:24:36 Re: PL/pgSQL 'i = i + 1' Syntax