From: | Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: testing hot standby |
Date: | 2010-04-13 16:08:08 |
Message-ID: | x2v3073cc9b1004130908od41f2f91u3e0c4af3b4c24b69@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>
>> i will read it on the morning and the thread where it is, something
>> that seems strange to me is that the patch touch twophase.c and
>> twophase.h, why?
>
> When you start hot standby from an online checkpoint, the XIDs of any
> two-phase transactions are included in the running-xacts record, just
> like any other in-progress transactions. At a shutdown checkpoint, we
> know that no regular transactions are in-progress, but there can be
> transactions in prepared state, which need to be considered as
> in-progress in the standby, but there's no information about them in the
> shutdown record. So we scan pg_twophase to discover them.
>
>
ah! that makes sense... thanks
--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-04-13 17:11:17 | Re: Naming of new EXCLUDE constraints |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-04-13 16:06:18 | Re: testing hot standby |