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.
> 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
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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thom Brown||Date: 2010-03-31 15:24:38|
|Subject: Re: sorry, too many standbys already vs. MaxWalSenders vs. max_wal_senders|
|Previous:||From: Chris Browne||Date: 2010-03-31 15:14:04|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: Add JSON support|