| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Weird planner issue on a standby |
| Date: | 2022-10-12 06:14:47 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=RkYqXXoz+Hre61mn4MNzeLOPWoh2PNOP+66A=xNFZdA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 9:27 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> I remember having an hypothesis, upon getting a report of this exact
> problem on a customer system once, that it could be due to killtuple not
> propagating to standbys except by FPIs. I do not remember if we proved
> that true or not. I do not remember observing that tables were being
> read, however.
That's true, but it doesn't matter whether or not there are LP_DEAD
bits set on the standby, since in any case they cannot be trusted when
in Hot Standby mode. IndexScanDescData.ignore_killed_tuples will be
set to false on the standby.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2022-10-12 06:24:56 | Re: Weird planner issue on a standby |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2022-10-12 06:07:51 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |