On Sun, 2009-12-27 at 20:11 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 December 2009 11:42:30 Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 03:19 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On Monday 21 December 2009 16:48:52 Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > Giving the drop database a snapshot is not the answer. I expect Andres
> > > > to be able to fix this with a simple patch that would not effect the
> > > > case of normal running.
> > >
> > > Actually its less simply than I had thought at first - I don't think the
> > > code ever handled that correctly.
> > > I might be wrong there, my knowledge of the involved code is a bit
> > > sparse... The whole conflict resolution builds on the concept of waiting
> > > for an VXid, but an idle backend does not have a valid vxid. Thats
> > > correct, right?
> > I don't see any mileage in making Startup process wait for an idle
> > session, so no real reason to wait for others either.
> So here is a small patch implementing that behaviour.
On further testing, I received a re-connection from an automatic session
retry. That shouldn't have happened, but it indicates the need for
locking around the conflict handler. I had understood that to be placed
elsewhere but that seems wrong now.
This is a low priority item, so looking for a quick fix to allow time on
other areas.
Any objections?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
