|From:||Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Allow interrupts on waiting standby|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 5:14 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Couple of thoughts on this patch ---
> 1. Shouldn't WaitExceedsMaxStandbyDelay's CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS be moved to
> after the WaitLatch call? Not much point in being woken immediately by
> an interrupt if you're not going to respond.
> 2. Is it OK to ResetLatch here? If the only possible latch event in this
> process is interrupt requests, then I think WaitLatch, then ResetLatch,
> then CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS is OK; but otherwise it seems like you risk
> discarding events that need to be serviced later.
Right, I have switched to WaitLatch(), ResetLatch() and then
> 3. In the same vein, if we're going to check WL_POSTMASTER_DEATH, should
> there be a test for that and immediate exit(1) here?
OK, if the postmaster has died, there is not much recovery conflict
> 4. I'd be inclined to increase the sleep interval only if we did time out,
> not if we were awakened by some other event.
OK, that makes sense.
> 5. The comment about maximum sleep length needs some work. At first
> glance you might think that without the motivation of preventing long
> uninterruptible sleeps, we might as well allow the sleep length to grow
> well past 1s. I think that'd be bad, because we want to wake up
> reasonably soon after the xact(s) we're waiting for commit. But neither
> the original text nor the proposed replacement mention this.
OK, I did some work on this comment.
What do you think about the updated version attached?
|Next Message||vinayak||2017-03-21 04:40:14||Re: ANALYZE command progress checker|
|Previous Message||Seki, Eiji||2017-03-21 04:16:44||Re: Proposal: GetOldestXminExtend for ignoring arbitrary vacuum flags|