On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 17:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 09:40 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>> The way this would work is if Startup waits on a buffer pin we
> >>> immediately send out a request to all backends to cancel themselves if
> >>> they are holding the buffer pin required && waiting on a lock. We then
> >>> sleep until max_standby_delay. When max_standby_delay = -1 we only sleep
> >>> until deadlock timeout and then check (on the Startup process).
> >> Should wake up to check for deadlocks after deadlock_timeout also when
> >> max_standby_delay > deadlock_timeout. max_standby_delay could be hours -
> >> we want to detect a deadlock sooner than that.
> > The patch does detect deadlocks sooner that that - "immediately", as
> > described above.
> Umm, so why not run the deadlock check immediately in
> max_standby_delay=-1 case as well? Why is that case handled differently
> from max_standby_delay>0 case?
Cos the code to do that is easy.
I'll do the deadlock check immediately and make it even easier.
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-01 16:06:11|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5304: psql using conninfo fails in connecting to the server |
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2010-02-01 15:58:02|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby and VACUUM FULL|