Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hot Standby: Relation-specific deferred conflict resolution
Date: 2010-01-29 09:33:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 08:26 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> Conflict resolution improvements are important to include in this
>>> release, as discussed many times. Proposal given here
>>> presents a viable design to improve this.
>>> Following patch is a complete working implementation of that design.
>>> I'm still testing it, but its worth publishing as early as possible to
>>> allow discussion. Not for commit, just yet, but soon.
>> Um, you're not considering this for 9.0, are you? I think it's time to
>> concentrate on the must-fix issues and fix the rough edges in what we have.
> Yes, it is important.
>> For example, the "can't start hot standby mode from a shutdown
>> checkpoint" issue is a must-fix issue in my opinion, about 10x as
>> important as this. When that was last discussed, many others agreed. I
>> run into that all the time when testing streaming replication, and every
>> time I go "Huh, why isn't the standby opening up for connections?", and
>> then, "Ahh, it's this stupid shutdown checkpoint issue again".
> That was not the feedback I have received. Nobody has commented on that
> to me, 

Yes they have. I have on several occasions, as have other people on this
mailing list:

I even *fixed* that already, but you decided to take it out before
committing. I then added it to the list of must-fix items in the TODO
list, but you took that out too. I have no objection to doing things in
smaller steps, but this *is* a must-fix item before release. I still
don't understand why you took it out, nor why you're objecting to that.

> though many have commented on the need for the current patch.


>  As
> mentioned, I went to the trouble of running a meeting to gain additional
> feedback and the result was very clear.

So what was the clear result?

If you're looking for things to do, I agree with Greg Stark that the
removal of max_standby_delay=-1 option is not good. That should be fixed

  Heikki Linnakangas

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alexey KlyukinDate: 2010-01-29 10:01:20
Subject: plperl db access documentation enhancement
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-01-29 08:41:19
Subject: Re: Streaming replication, and walsender during recovery

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group