| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
|---|
| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | comment needs to be updated for HS? |
| Date: | 2010-05-12 19:20:35 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTilrVx3LFdD6vd5WDfbIkXCYR_zyg77jPihnhLyj@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
postmaster.c contains the following comment just above the definition
of PMState. It appears to be out of date:
* After reaching a consistent point in WAL redo, startup process signals
* us again, and we switch to PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT state. There's currently
* no difference between PM_RECOVERY and PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT, but we
* could start accepting connections to perform read-only queries at this
* point, if we had the infrastructure to do that.
The next paragraph has what I believe to be the correct information:
* Normal child backends can only be launched when we are in PM_RUN or
* PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT state. (We also allow launch of normal
I am happy to fix this but thought SImon or Heikki or Tom might like
to either (a) jump in and do it themselves or (b) tell me if I've
misunderstood the situation. If neither of those is the case then I
will go ahead and fix it.
Thanks,
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: comment needs to be updated for HS? |
| Date: | 2010-05-13 01:59:07 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimr9g3QNq1T0d-HwvaJl_krFSoZaESZkAm9rj6k@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> postmaster.c contains the following comment just above the definition
> of PMState. It appears to be out of date:
>
> * After reaching a consistent point in WAL redo, startup process signals
> * us again, and we switch to PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT state. There's currently
> * no difference between PM_RECOVERY and PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT, but we
> * could start accepting connections to perform read-only queries at this
> * point, if we had the infrastructure to do that.
But the first sentence of the above seems to be correct and helpful. No?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: comment needs to be updated for HS? |
| Date: | 2010-05-13 02:56:28 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTikl9ljg7ujYXEttjLBaaVsTFQk6kWdY6xnaQXav@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> postmaster.c contains the following comment just above the definition
>> of PMState. It appears to be out of date:
>>
>> * After reaching a consistent point in WAL redo, startup process signals
>> * us again, and we switch to PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT state. There's currently
>> * no difference between PM_RECOVERY and PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT, but we
>> * could start accepting connections to perform read-only queries at this
>> * point, if we had the infrastructure to do that.
>
> But the first sentence of the above seems to be correct and helpful. No?
Yes. I was just quoting the whole thing for context.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company