| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Another reason why the recovery tests take a long time |
| Date: | 2017-06-26 17:42:52 |
| Message-ID: | 17510.1498498972@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-06-26 12:32:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... But I wonder whether it's intentional that the old
>> walreceiver dies in the first place. That FATAL exit looks suspiciously
>> like it wasn't originally-designed-in behavior.
> It's quite intentional afaik - I've complained about the bad error
> message recently (we really shouldn't say "no COPY in progress), but
> exiting seems quite reasonable. Otherwise we'd have add a separate
> retry logic into the walsender, that reconnects without a new walsender
> being started.
Ah, I see. I'd misinterpreted the purpose of the infinite loop in
WalReceiverMain() --- now I see that's for receiving requests from the
startup proc for different parts of the WAL stream, not for reconnecting
to the master.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-06-26 18:01:04 | Re: Another reason why the recovery tests take a long time |
| Previous Message | Jeevan Ladhe | 2017-06-26 17:38:19 | Re: fix empty array expression in get_qual_for_list() |