Re: Hot Standby WAL reply uses heavyweight session locks, but doesn't have enough infrastructure set up

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zboszor(at)pr(dot)hu>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot Standby WAL reply uses heavyweight session locks, but doesn't have enough infrastructure set up
Date: 2015-01-29 16:01:51
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZYiEJW5r+HFkokqptfr56i-eOCBu3QXxUdYDvNAV3eQw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 2:41 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>> I think this isn't particularly pretty, but it seems to be working well
>> enough, and changing it would be pretty invasive. So keeping in line
>> with all that code seems to be easier.
> OK, I'm convinced with this part to remove the call of
> LockSharedObjectForSession that uses dontWait and replace it by a loop
> in ResolveRecoveryConflictWithDatabase.

That seems right to me, too.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-01-29 16:08:55 Re: TABLESAMPLE patch
Previous Message Marco Nenciarini 2015-01-29 16:00:21 pg_check_dir comments and implementation mismatch