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 AANLkTincIQW-wK93ch9kN5DVEndVlmAfjNg052NBe996@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In terms of removing the backup label file, can we simply have an
>> additional boolean in the postmaster that indicates whether we've ever
>> reached PM_RUN, and only consider removing the backup file if so?
>
> Yes, but I prefer XLogCtl->SharedRecoveryInProgress, which is the almost
> same indicator as the boolean you suggested. Thought?

It feels cleaner and simpler to me to use the information that the
postmaster already collects rather than having it take locks and check
shared memory, but I might be wrong.  Why do you prefer doing it that
way?

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Synchronous replication patch built on SR
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BYTEA / DBD::Pg change in 9.0 beta