Re: Clean switchover

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2013-06-12 08:48:39 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Magnus Hagander (magnus(at)hagander(dot)net) wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> > > On 2013-06-12 07:53:29 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> > >> The attached patch fixes this problem. It just changes walsender so that it
>> > >> waits for all the outstanding WAL records to be replicated to the standby
>> > >> before closing the replication connection.
>> > >
>> > > Imo this is a fix that needs to get backpatched... The code tried to do
>> > > this but failed, I don't think it really gives grounds for valid *new*
>> > > concerns.
>> >
>> > +1 (without having looked at the code itself, it's definitely a
>> > behaviour that needs to be fixed)
>>
>> Yea, I was also thinking it would be reasonable to backpatch this; it
>> really looks like a bug that we're allowing this to happen today.
>>
>> So, +1 on a backpatch for me. I've looked at the patch (it's a
>> one-liner, plus some additional comments) but havn't looked through the
>> overall code surrounding it.
>
> I've read most of the surrounding code and I think the patch is as
> sensible as it can be without reworking the whole walsender main loop
> which seems like a job for another day.
>
> I'd personally write
> if (caughtup && !pq_is_send_pending() &&
> sentPtr == MyWalSnd->flush)
> as
> if (caughtup && sentPtr == MyWalSnd->flush &&
> !pq_is_send_pending())
>
> Since pq_is_send_pending() basically can only be false if the flush
> comparison is true. There's the tiny chance that we were sending a
> message out just before which is why we should include the
> !pq_is_send_pending() condition at all in that if().

Yep, I updated the patch that way. Thanks for the comment!

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao