| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2022-05-10 07:48:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-tzW+pFXGh-NqZCJmBGPsd2EHtvYvSxvsZTH7=cWsdPMw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:39 PM Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> wrote:
> > On 9 May 2022, at 14:44, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, making it wait for some amount of time, based on GUC is not a
> > complete solution. It is just a hack to avoid the problem in some
> > cases.
>
> Disallowing cancelation of locally committed transactions is not a hack. It's removing of a hack that was erroneously installed to make backend responsible to Ctrl+C (or client side statement timeout).
I might be missing something but based on my understanding the
approach is not disallowing the query cancellation but it is just
adding the configuration for how much to delay before canceling the
query. That's the reason I mentioned that this is not a guarenteed
solution. I mean with this configuration value also you can not avoid
problems in all the cases, right?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-05-10 07:59:59 | Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-05-10 07:09:47 | Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT |