| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
| Date: | 2006-05-19 16:20:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1941.1148055645@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Well, the fact that there's only one archiver *now* doesn't mean there
> wasn't more than one when the problem happened. The orphaned archiver
> would eventually quit.
But, actually, nevermind: we have explained the failures you were seeing
in the test setup, but a multiple-active-archiver situation still
doesn't explain the original situation of incoming connections getting
blocked.
What I'd suggest is resuming the test after making sure you've killed
off any old archivers, and seeing if you can make any progress on
reproducing the original problem. We definitely need a
multiple-archiver interlock, but I think that must be unrelated to your
real problem.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-05-19 16:25:31 | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-19 16:17:29 | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-19 16:20:48 | Re: text_position worst case runtime |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-05-19 16:17:29 | Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection? |