Re: max_worker_processes on the standby - Mailing list pgsql-docs

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: max_worker_processes on the standby
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZMbtM94LxedPFp9oHecRGkq-ReunYBnu+F_VkBW9m2OA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: max_worker_processes on the standby  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: max_worker_processes on the standby  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-docs
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> One example which makes me a bit confusing is; both master and
> standby are running fine with track_commit_timestamp disabled,
> then I enable it only on the master. That is, the value of
> track_commit_timestamp is not the same between master and standby.
> No error happens in this case. According to the code of xlog_redo(),
> the commit timestamp tracking mechanism is activated in this case.
> However, after that, if standby is restarted, standby emits an error
> because the value of track_commit_timestamp is not the same between
> master and standby. Simple question is; why do we need to cause
> the standby fail in this case? Since I'm not familiar with the code of
> track_commit_timestamp yet, I'm not sure whether this behavior is
> valid or not.

Hmm, that seems like awfully weird behavior.

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


pgsql-docs by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Confused by example in 13.2.2
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: max_worker_processes on the standby