Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch
Date
Msg-id 1297841279.1747.27059.camel@ebony
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 11:25 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Looks pretty good to me, though I haven't tested it.  I like some of
> >> the safety valves you put in there, but I don't understand this part
> >
> > Reworked logic covering all feedback, plus tests, plus docs.
> >
> > Last comments before commit please.
> 
> When I started the standby with hot_standby = off and hot_standby_feedback = on,
> I got the following assertion error.
> 
> -----------------
> sby LOG:  streaming replication successfully connected to primary
> TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((result) >= ((TransactionId) 3)))", File:
> "procarray.c", Line: 1027)
> act LOG:  unexpected EOF on standby connection
> sby LOG:  WAL receiver process (PID 17572) was terminated by signal 6: Aborted
> sby LOG:  terminating any other active server processes
> -----------------

Thanks

> vacuum_defer_cleanup_age on the *standby* should not affect the
> feedback xid.

Not sure, will think some more.

> VACUUM TABLE on the *primary* doesn't use the feedback xid at all.
> Is this intentional?

Yes, I was in the middle of fixing that.

-- Simon Riggs           http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: updated patch for foreach stmt
Next
From: Itagaki Takahiro
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL/MED - file_fdw