Re: Allow interrupts on waiting standby

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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
Date: 2017-03-29 13:08:03
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
<tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Michael Paquier
>> What do you think about the updated version attached?
> I reviewed this patch. Here are some comments and questions:


> (1) monitoring.sgml
> The new row needs to be placed in the "Timeout" group. The current patch puts the row at the end of IO group. Please insert the new row according to the alphabetical order.
> In addition, "morerows" attribute of the following line appears to be increased.
> <entry morerows="2"><literal>Timeout</></entry>
> By the way, doesn't this wait event belong to IPC wait event type, because the process is waiting for other conflicting processes to terminate the conflict conditions? Did you choose Timeout type because max_standby_{archive | streaming}_delay relates to this wait? I'm not confident which is appropriate, but I'm afraid users can associate this wait with a timeout.

Actually I think that this event belongs to the timeout category,
because we wait until the timeout has finished, the latch being here
to be sure that the process is more responsive in case of a postmaster

> (2) standby.c
> Do we need to specify WL_LATCH_SET? Who can set the latch? Do the backends who ended the conflict set the latch?

This makes the process able to react on SIGHUP. That's useful for

> (3) standby.c
> + if (rc & WL_LATCH_SET)
> + ResetLatch(MyLatch);
> +
> + /* emergency bailout if postmaster has died */
> + proc_exit(1);
> I thought the child processes have to terminate as soon as postmaster vanishes. So, it would be better for the order of the two if statements above to be reversed. proc_exit() could be exit(), as some children do in postmaster/*.c.

OK, reversed this order.

Attached is v4.

Attachment Content-Type Size
standby-delay-latch-v4.patch application/octet-stream 4.3 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-03-29 13:36:07 Re: Postgres Permissions Article
Previous Message Petr Jelinek 2017-03-29 13:06:41 Re: Logical replication existing data copy