On Sat, 2009-12-19 at 23:22 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamada wrote:
> >Do people want more time to play with hot standby? Otherwise alpha3
> >should go out on Monday or Tuesday.
> >
>
> Well, I want to know whether the problem I refered to
> in http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-12/msg01641.php
> is must-fix or not.
>
> This problem is a corollary of the deadlock problem. This is less catstrophic
> but more likely to happen.
>
> If you leave this problem, for example, any long-running transactions,
> holding any cursors in whatever tables, have a possibility of freezing
> whole recovery work in HotStandby node until the transaction commit.
You seem very insistent on bringing up problems just before release.
Almost as if you have a reason to back some other technology other than
this one.
The problem you mention here has been documented and very accessible for
months and not a single person mentioned it up to now. What's more, the
equivalent problem happens in the latest production version of Postgres
- users can delay VACUUM endlessly in just the same way, yet I've not
seen this raised as an issue in many years of using Postgres. Similarly,
there are some ways that Postgres can deadlock that it need not, yet
those negative behaviours are accepted and nobody is rushing to fix
them, nor demanding that they should be. Few things are theoretically
perfect on their first release.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
