> 25 июля 2022 г., в 14:29, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> написал(а):
>
> Hm, after thinking for a while, I tend to agree with the above
> approach - meaning, query cancel interrupt processing can completely
> be disabled in SyncRepWaitForLSN() and process proc die interrupt
> immediately, this approach requires no GUC as opposed to the proposed
> v1 patch upthread.
GUC was proposed here[0] to maintain compatibility with previous behaviour. But I think that having no GUC here is fine
too.If we do not allow cancelation of unreplicated backends, of course.
>>
>> And yes, we need additional complexity - but in some other place. Transaction can also be locally committed in
presenceof a server crash. But this another difficult problem. Crashed server must not allow data queries until LSN of
timelineend is successfully replicated to synchronous_standby_names.
>
> Hm, that needs to be done anyways. How about doing as proposed
> initially upthread [1]? Also, quoting the idea here [2].
>
> Thoughts?
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACUrOB59QaE6=jF2cFAyv1MR7fzD8tr4YM5+OwEYG1SNzA@mail.gmail.com
> [2] 2) Wait for sync standbys to catch up upon restart after the crash or
> in the next txn after the old locally committed txn was canceled. One
> way to achieve this is to let the backend, that's making the first
> connection, wait for sync standbys to catch up in ClientAuthentication
> right after successful authentication. However, I'm not sure this is
> the best way to do it at this point.
I think ideally startup process should not allow read only connections in CheckRecoveryConsistency() until WAL is not
replicatedto quorum al least up until new timeline LSN.
Thanks!
[0] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/34/2402/
