Re: Excessive CPU usage in StandbyReleaseLocks()

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Excessive CPU usage in StandbyReleaseLocks()
Date: 2018-06-19 17:05:48
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ8gYvPgW1d0=wG1pNCVgEbTn_xXx1b22UGeRSQ14vUTA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 1:01 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2018-06-19 10:45:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> > This should be a PANIC imo.
>>
>> -1. As a developer, I would prefer PANIC. But as an end-user, I
>> would much rather have replay continue (with possible problems) than
>> have it stopped cold in its tracks with absolutely nothing that I as
>> the administrator can do to fix it. We should be building this
>> product for end users.
>
> Except that that just means the end-user will have an undebuggable
> problem at their hand. Which will affect them as well.

I agree, but my guess is that a PANIC will affect them more.

> And they could just restart with hot_standby=off, and restart again. Or
> even just restart without the GUC change, because that will rebuild the
> locking state from a later state / start becoming ready for query at a
> later stage.

True, but that can still be a sufficient operational problem.

I don't expect you to agree with my vote, but I stand by it.

--
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 Jesper Pedersen 2018-06-19 17:06:08 Re: Index Skip Scan
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-06-19 17:01:08 Re: Excessive CPU usage in StandbyReleaseLocks()