| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Hot standby |
| Date: | 2008-11-28 18:00:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1227895239.20796.232.camel@hp_dx2400_1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 12:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 11:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I hadn't been following the discussion closely enough to know what the
> >> problem is.
>
> > When we replay an AccessExclusiveLock on the standby we need to kick off
> > any current lock holders, after a configurable grace period. Current
> > lock holders may include some read-only backends that are
> > idle-in-transaction. SIGINT, which is what the current patch uses, is
> > not sufficient to dislodge the idle backends.
>
> Hm. People have complained of that fact from time to time in normal
> usage as well. Should we simply change SIGINT handling to allow it to
> cancel an idle transaction?
Yes, that is by far the best solution. ISTM many people will be happy.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2008-11-28 18:03:50 | Re: Review: Hot standby |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-28 18:00:33 | Re: A bug with ALTER TABLE SET WITHOUT OIDS in CVS HEAD |