| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: gcc 4.6 and hot standby |
| Date: | 2011-06-09 02:36:57 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=P-FqeCpSZ8B6MVCPnKt7AM_m1yQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:31 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> So it's interesting that this only happens with a particular gcc version,
> because it's not apparent to me why it works properly for anybody.
> Isn't hitting a zero record length an expected case when we run ahead of
> the amount of WAL produced by the master?
At least while walreceiver is running, recovery doesn't go ahead of the
last receive location. So that's not an expected case.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Euler Taveira de Oliveira | 2011-06-09 02:55:36 | Re: tuning autovacuum |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-09 02:21:18 | Re: WALInsertLock contention |