Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 17:21 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> I don't think it does, please look again.
>> Still looks ok to me. pgarch_ArchiverCopyLoop() loops until all ready
>> WAL segments have been archived (assuming no errors).
> No, it doesn't now, though it did used to. line 440.
postmaster never sends SIGTERM to pgarch, and postmaster is still alive.
>>>> Ok, we're good then I guess.
>>> No, because as I said, if archive_command has been returning non-zero
>>> then the archive will be incomplete.
>> Yes. You think that's wrong? How would you like it to behave, then? I
>> don't think you want the shutdown to wait indefinitely until all files
>> have been archived if there's an error.
> The complaint was that we needed to run a manual step to synchronise the
> pg_xlog directory on the standby. We still need to do that, even after
> the patch has been committed because 2 cases are not covered, so what is
> the point of the recent change? It isn't enough. It *might* be enough,
> most of the time, but you have no way of knowing that is the case and it
> is dangerous not to check.
So you check. This solves Guillaume's immediate concern. If you have a
suggestion for further improvements, I'm all ears.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andreas Pflug||Date: 2009-05-28 15:03:08|
|Subject: Re: Clean shutdown and warm standby|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2009-05-28 14:57:14|
|Subject: Re: User-facing aspects of serializable transactions|