Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch
Date: 2011-02-16 02:25:30
Message-ID: AANLkTikumNrqEYpfOvT95FWbKFs=nObcM8EEqnZ6jfqr@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Looks pretty good to me, though I haven't tested it.  I like some of
>> the safety valves you put in there, but I don't understand this part
>
> Reworked logic covering all feedback, plus tests, plus docs.
>
> Last comments before commit please.

When I started the standby with hot_standby = off and hot_standby_feedback = on,
I got the following assertion error.

-----------------
sby LOG: streaming replication successfully connected to primary
TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((result) >= ((TransactionId) 3)))", File:
"procarray.c", Line: 1027)
act LOG: unexpected EOF on standby connection
sby LOG: WAL receiver process (PID 17572) was terminated by signal 6: Aborted
sby LOG: terminating any other active server processes
-----------------

vacuum_defer_cleanup_age on the *standby* should not affect the
feedback xid.

VACUUM TABLE on the *primary* doesn't use the feedback xid at all.
Is this intentional?

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-02-16 02:30:55 Re: pg_ctl failover Re: Latches, signals, and waiting
Previous Message Itagaki Takahiro 2011-02-16 02:22:04 Re: CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04