Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-tzW+pFXGh-NqZCJmBGPsd2EHtvYvSxvsZTH7=cWsdPMw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication  (Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>)
Responses Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:39 PM Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> wrote:

> > On 9 May 2022, at 14:44, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, making it wait for some amount of time, based on GUC is not a
> > complete solution.  It is just a hack to avoid the problem in some
> > cases.
>
> Disallowing cancelation of locally committed transactions is not a hack. It's removing of a hack that was erroneously
installedto make backend responsible to Ctrl+C (or client side statement timeout).
 

I might be missing something but based on my understanding the
approach is not disallowing the query cancellation but it is just
adding the configuration for how much to delay before canceling the
query.  That's the reason I mentioned that this is not a guarenteed
solution.  I mean with this configuration value also you can not avoid
problems in all the cases, right?

-- 
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication