Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?