Re: Postgres-R: internal messaging

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch>
Cc: Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Postgres-R: internal messaging
Date: 2008-07-23 20:51:42
Message-ID: 11514.1216846302@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Markus Wanner <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> writes:
> ... crashes are more difficult. IMO the replication
> manager needs to stay alive during this reinitialization, to keep the
> GCS connection. However, it can easily detach from shared memory
> temporarily (the imessages stuff is the only shmem place it touches,
> IIRC). However, a more difficult aspect is: it must be able to tell if a
> backend has applied its transaction *before* it died or not. Thus, after
> all backends have been killed, the postmaster needs to wait with
> reinitializing shared memory, until the replication manager has consumed
> all its messages. (Otherwise we would risk "losing" local transactions,
> probably also remote ones).

I hope you're not expecting the contents of shared memory to still be
trustworthy after a backend crash. If the manager is working strictly
from its own local memory, then it would be reasonable to operate
as above.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2008-07-23 21:01:18 Re: [PATCHES] odd output in restore mode
Previous Message Manoel Henrique 2008-07-23 20:47:22 Re: Research/Implementation of Nested Loop Join optimization