| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby |
| Date: | 2016-02-10 08:12:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqTZkt97rgzzNTk=cD8dfou2-O8pR==ovLE5kcjB6PNBTQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Okay, but isn't it better that we remove the snapshot taken
> at checkpoint time in the main branch or till where this code is
> getting back-patched. Do you see any need of same after
> having the logging of snapshot in bgwriter?
But this one is necessary as well to allow hot standby faster to
initialize, no? Particularly in the case where a bgwriter snapshot
would have been taken just before the checkpoint, there may be up to
15s until the next one.
And AFAIK, this code would not get a back-patch, as stated by Andres
upthread :( I would think that it is better to actually get a
backpatch, but well...
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | prathameshsonavane | 2016-02-10 10:46:04 | BUG #13940: rollback prepared is not working |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-02-10 08:00:32 | Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2016-02-10 08:24:00 | Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-02-10 08:00:32 | Re: Re: BUG #13685: Archiving while idle every archive_timeout with wal_level hot_standby |