| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(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: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful) |
| Date: | 2010-05-19 11:50:17 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTincIQW-wK93ch9kN5DVEndVlmAfjNg052NBe996@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> In terms of removing the backup label file, can we simply have an
>> additional boolean in the postmaster that indicates whether we've ever
>> reached PM_RUN, and only consider removing the backup file if so?
>
> Yes, but I prefer XLogCtl->SharedRecoveryInProgress, which is the almost
> same indicator as the boolean you suggested. Thought?
It feels cleaner and simpler to me to use the information that the
postmaster already collects rather than having it take locks and check
shared memory, but I might be wrong. Why do you prefer doing it that
way?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-19 12:13:03 | Re: BYTEA / DBD::Pg change in 9.0 beta |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-05-19 10:53:27 | Re: Synchronous replication patch built on SR |