Re: WIP: long transactions on hot standby feedback replica / proof of concept

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ivan Kartyshov <i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: long transactions on hot standby feedback replica / proof of concept
Date: 2017-10-30 13:16:14
Message-ID: CA+Tgmob+kYuTs4ZN26ZySYRMhuFCjK_OnVY8iTZHPdn7Ro2iYg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Ivan Kartyshov
<i(dot)kartyshov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> Hello. I made some bugfixes and rewrite the patch.

I don't think it's a good idea to deliberately leave the state of the
standby different from the state of the master on the theory that it
won't matter. I feel like that's something that's likely to come back
to bite us.

Giving LockAcquireExtended() an argument that causes some
AccessExclusiveLocks not all to be logged also seems pretty ugly,
especially because there are no comments whatsoever explaining the
rationale.

--
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 Raúl Marín Rodríguez 2017-10-30 13:18:33 Re: pow support for pgbench
Previous Message Chris Travers 2017-10-30 13:14:12 Patch: restrict pg_rewind to whitelisted directories