Re: Incorrect snapshots while promoting hot standby node when 2PC is used

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Incorrect snapshots while promoting hot standby node when 2PC is used
Date: 2021-05-31 12:37:17
Message-ID: YLTYfUE7VEZvtqeD@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 10:01:49AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Why would it be intrusive? We're talking a split second here, no? More
> importantly, I don't think it's correct to release the locks at that
> point.

I have been looking at all that for the last couple of days, and
checked the code to make sure that relying on RecoveryInProgress() as
the tipping point is logically correct in terms of virtual XID,
snapshot build and KnownAssignedXids cleanup. This stuff is tricky
enough that I may have missed something, but my impression (and
testing) is that we should be safe.

I am adding this patch to the next CF for now. More eyes are needed.
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
end-recovery-2pc.patch text/x-diff 1.4 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Pyhalov 2021-05-31 12:39:41 join pushdown and issue with foreign update
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2021-05-31 12:08:11 Re: postgres_fdw: Handle boolean comparison predicates