From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | MauMau <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [RFC: bug fix?] Connection attempt block forever when the synchronous standby is not running |
Date: | 2014-07-07 13:57:20 |
Message-ID: | 20972.1404741440@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I think we should rework RecordTransactionCommit() to only wait for the
> standby if `markXidCommitted' and not if `wrote_xlog'. There really
> isn't a reason to make a readonly transaction's commit wait just because
> it did some hot pruning.
Well, see the comment that explains why the logic is like this now:
* If we didn't create XLOG entries, we're done here; otherwise we
* should flush those entries the same as a commit record. (An
* example of a possible record that wouldn't cause an XID to be
* assigned is a sequence advance record due to nextval() --- we want
* to flush that to disk before reporting commit.)
I agree that HOT pruning isn't a reason to make a commit wait, but
nextval() is.
We could perhaps add more flags that would keep track of which sorts of
xlog entries justify a wait at commit, but TBH I'm skeptical of the entire
proposition. Having synchronous replication on with no live slave *will*
result in arbitrary hangs, and the argument that this particular case
should be exempt seems a bit thin to me. The sooner the user realizes
he's got a problem, the better. If read-only transactions don't show a
problem, the user might not realize he's got one until he starts to wonder
why autovac/autoanalyze aren't working.
I think a more useful line of thought would be to see if we can't complain
more loudly when we have no synchronous standby. Perhaps a "WARNING:
waiting forever for lack of a synchronous standby" could be emitted when
a transaction starts to wait.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-07 14:07:19 | Re: Extending constraint exclusion for implied constraints/conditions |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-07-07 12:39:29 | Re: Cluster name in ps output |