From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful) |
Date: | 2010-05-24 05:27:25 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTilRr_aPBKYEUX9geDLxHKjEs_WlOjbuadDxTBkF@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Oh, right. How about allowing the postmaster only in PM_STARTUP,
>>> PM_RECOVERY, PM_HOT_STANDBY or PM_WAIT_READONLY state to invoke
>>> walreceiver? We can keep walreceiver alive until all read only
>>> backends have gone, and prevent unexpected startup of walreceiver.
>>
>> Yes, that seems like something we should be checking, if we aren't already.
>
> I'll do that.
Here is the updated version. I added the above-mentioned check
into the patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fix_smart_shutdown_in_recovery_v4_fujii.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | KaiGai Kohei | 2010-05-24 06:48:55 | Re: ExecutorCheckPerms() hook |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-05-24 03:19:31 | Re: Specification for Trusted PLs? |