On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Efficient transaction-controlled synchronous replication.
>> If a standby is broadcasting reply messages and we have named
>> one or more standbys in synchronous_standby_names then allow
>> users who set synchronous_replication to wait for commit, which
>> then provides strict data integrity guarantees. Design avoids
>> sending and receiving transaction state information so minimises
>> bookkeeping overheads. We synchronize with the highest priority
>> standby that is connected and ready to synchronize. Other standbys
>> can be defined to takeover in case of standby failure.
>>
>> This version has very strict behaviour; more relaxed options
>> may be added at a later date.
>
> Pretty cool! I'd appreciate very much your efforts and contributions.
>
> And,, I found one bug ;) You seem to have wrongly removed the check
> of max_wal_senders in SyncRepWaitForLSN. This can make the
> backend wait for replication even if max_wal_senders = 0. I could produce
> this problematic situation in my machine. The attached patch fixes this problem.
if (strlen(SyncRepStandbyNames) > 0 && max_wal_senders == 0) ereport(ERROR, (errmsg("Synchronous
replicationrequires WAL streaming
(max_wal_senders > 0)")));
The above check should be required also after pg_ctl reload since
synchronous_standby_names can be changed by SIGHUP?
Or how about just removing that? If the patch I submitted is
committed,empty synchronous_standby_names and max_wal_senders = 0
settings is no longer unsafe.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
