Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)
Date
Msg-id 1274092906.28911.469.camel@ebony
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 06:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 21:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> >> I have what I believe is
> >> an equivalent but simpler implementation, which is attached.
> >
> > There's no code comments to explain this, so without in-depth analysis
> > of the problem, Masao's patch and this one its not possible to say
> > anything.
> >
> > Please explain in detail why its the right approach and put that in a
> > comment, so we'll understand now and in the future.
> 
> The explanation is what I wrote in my previous email: a smart shutdown
> request during recovery should be treated the same way BEFORE the
> postmaster has been asked to start the background writer and AFTER the
> postmaster has been asked to start the background writer.  I'll think
> up a suitable comment.

I think we should review Masao's patch and ask him to make any changes
we think are appropriate. There's no benefit to have multiple patch
authors at one time.

-- Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)