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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)
Date
Msg-id AANLkTikG1BLgkll2X_q1eA9jfdNx4YNoTW7YWPtfcOqw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)
List pgsql-hackers
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.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and extra_float_digits
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)