Re: Hot Standby (v9d)

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot Standby (v9d)
Date: 2009-01-24 23:48:07
Message-ID: 497BA8B7.90606@paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-24 at 11:20 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2009-01-24 at 17:24 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> version 9g - please use this for testing now
>>>>
>>> I'm doing some test runs with this now. I notice an old flatfiles
>>> related bug has reappeared:
>>>
>> I'm seeing an off-by-one error on xmax, in some cases. That then causes
>> the flat file update to not pick up correct info, even though it
>> executed in other ways as intended. If you run two create databases and
>> then test only the first, it appears to have worked as intended.
>>
>> These bugs are result of recent refactoring and it will take a few days
>> to shake some of them out. We've had more than 20 already so we're
>> beating them back, but we're not done yet.
>>
>
> I was at a loss to explain how this could have slipped through our
> tests. It appears that the error was corrected following each checkpoint
> as a result of ProcArrayUpdateRunningXacts(). Our tests were performed
> after a short delay, which typically would be greater than the
> deliberately short setting of checkpoint_timeout/archive_timeout and so
> by the time we looked the error was gone and masked the problem. We're
> setting checkpoint_timeout to 30 mins now to avoid the delay...
>
>
That makes sense - I had archive_timeout set at 5 minutes, and I would
have checked before 5 minutes were up.

Cheers

Mark

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-01-24 23:50:41 mingw check hung
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2009-01-24 23:47:51 Re: More FOR UPDATE/FOR SHARE problems