Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Date: 2010-05-13 02:46:44
Message-ID: AANLkTimdw83ZaLdwNDXv1nCcTrOOSun5guXu0yDypGCz@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I am wondering if we are not correctly handling the case where we get
> a shutdown request while we are still in the PM_STARTUP state.  It
> looks like we might go ahead and switch to PM_RECOVERY and then
> PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT without noticing the shutdown.  There is some
> logic to handle the shutdown when the startup process exits, but if
> the startup process never exits it looks like we might get stuck.

Right. I reported this problem and submitted the patch before.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-04/msg00592.php

Stefan,
Could you check whether the patch fixes the problem you encountered?

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 2010-05-13 02:56:28 Re: comment needs to be updated for HS?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-05-13 02:41:53 Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)