| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pending patch: Re: HS/SR and smart shutdown |
| Date: | 2010-03-31 15:16:21 |
| Message-ID: | n2n603c8f071003310816zd23e9515nbefe9cc8dc36967d@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > >From what I have seen, the comment about PM_WAIT_BACKENDS is incorrect.
>> > "backends might be waiting for the WAL record that conflicts with their
>> > queries to be replayed". Recovery sometimes waits for backends, but
>> > backends never wait for recovery.
>>
>> Really? As Heikki explained before, backends might wait for the lock
>> taken by the startup process.
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg02984.php
>
> Backends wait for locks, yes, but they could be waiting for user locks
> also. That is not "waiting for the WAL record", that concept does not
> exist.
Hmm... this is a good point, on two levels. First, the comment is not
as well-phrased as it could be. Second, I wonder why we can't kill
the startup process and WAL receiver right away, and then wait for the
backends to die off afterwards.
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2010-03-31 15:24:38 | Re: sorry, too many standbys already vs. MaxWalSenders vs. max_wal_senders |
| Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2010-03-31 15:14:04 | Re: Proposal: Add JSON support |