From: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Cascading replication and recovery_target_timeline='latest' |
Date: | 2012-09-05 02:34:59 |
Message-ID: | 5046BA53.8000707@iki.fi |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04.09.2012 17:34, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04.09.2012 16:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Josh Berkus<josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>>> Heikki,
>>>> It is for 9.2. I'll do a little bit more testing, and barring any
>>>> issues, commit the patch. What exactly is the schedule? Do we need
>>>> to do
>>>> a RC2 because of this?
>>
>>> We're currently scheduled to release next week. If we need to do an
>>> RC2, we're going to have to do some fast rescheduling; we've already
>>> started the publicity machine.
>>
>> At this point I would argue that the only thing that should abort the
>> launch is a bad regression. Minor bugs in new features (and this must
>> be minor if it wasn't noticed before) don't qualify.
>>
>> Having said that, it'd be good to get it fixed if we can. The schedule
>> says to wrap 9.2.0 Thursday evening --- Heikki, can you get this fixed
>> tomorrow (Wednesday)?
>
> The attached patch fixes it for me. It fixes the original problem, by
> adding the missing locking and terminating walsenders on a target
> timeline change, and also changes the behavior wrt. WAL segments
> restored from the archive, as I just suggested in another email
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-09/msg00206.php)
Committed that.
- Heikki
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-09-05 03:07:00 | Re: Wiki link for max_connections? (Fwd: Re: [ADMIN] PostgreSQL oom_adj postmaster process to -17) |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-09-05 02:19:32 | Re: index-only scans versus serializable transactions |