From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Hot Standby, max_connections and max_prepared_transactions |
Date: | 2009-09-04 13:54:02 |
Message-ID: | 1252072442.2889.575.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 09:26 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 22:22 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> > I propose we just accept that both max_connections and
> >> > max_prepared_transactions need to be set correctly for recovery to work.
> >> > This will make the state transitions more robust and it will avoid
> >> > spurious and hard to test error messages.
> >> >
> >> > Any objections to me removing this slice of code from the patch?
> >>
> >> Umm, what slice of code? I don't recall any code trying to make it work.
> >
> > Well, its there. Perhaps the full functionality has been clipped in
> > recent changes, but there are still unwanted ramifications in the design
> > that I think would be best to remove. No loss of functionality, just HS
> > won't activate unless max_connections is set >= value on primary.
>
> I'm not sure if you're referring to the work that I did, but if so
> it's not nearly that significant.
No, this was introduced in Jan/Feb.
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-09-04 14:01:58 | Re: PgCon 2009 Developer Meeting pictures |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-09-04 13:26:29 | Re: Hot Standby, max_connections and max_prepared_transactions |