On 2020/09/23 12:47, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:27 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've gone as far as running the recovery tests on the v3-0001 patch
>> using a Windows machine. They pass:
>
> Thanks! I pushed that one, because it was effectively a bug fix
> (WaitLatch() without a latch was supposed to work).
Great!
>
> I'll wait longer for feedback on the main patch; perhaps someone has a
> better idea, or wants to take issue with the magic number 1024 (ie
> limit on how many records we'll replay before we notice the postmaster
> has exited), or my plan to harmonise those wait loops? It has a CF
> entry for the next CF.
Does this patch work fine with warm-standby case using pg_standby?
IIUC the startup process doesn't call WaitLatch() in that case, so ISTM that,
with the patch, it cannot detect the postmaster death immediately.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
