Thread: Cascaded standby message
From what I can tell, everytime I start a postmaster on HEAD (at least when i've set wal_level=archive, and max_wal_senders > 0), I get the message: LOG: terminating all walsender processes to force cascaded standby(s) to update timeline and reconnect in the startup log. This is long before I've connected any slaves or even considered cascading standbys - seems this message is written unnecessarily? -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > From what I can tell, everytime I start a postmaster on HEAD (at least > when i've set wal_level=archive, and max_wal_senders > 0), I get the > message: > LOG: terminating all walsender processes to force cascaded standby(s) > to update timeline and reconnect > > in the startup log. > > This is long before I've connected any slaves or even considered > cascading standbys - seems this message is written unnecessarily? I think this should be removed and will do that. Fujii - the original goal here was to avoid having a unexplained disconnection in the logs. The only way to do this cleanly is to have a disconnection reason passed to the walsender, rather than just a blind signal. Looks like we need to multiplex or other mechanism. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Fujii - the original goal here was to avoid having a unexplained > disconnection in the logs. The only way to do this cleanly is to have > a disconnection reason passed to the walsender, rather than just a > blind signal. Looks like we need to multiplex or other mechanism. That's an idea. But what about the patch that I proposed before? http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-08/msg00816.php Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 03:44, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Fujii - the original goal here was to avoid having a unexplained >> disconnection in the logs. The only way to do this cleanly is to have >> a disconnection reason passed to the walsender, rather than just a >> blind signal. Looks like we need to multiplex or other mechanism. > > That's an idea. But what about the patch that I proposed before? > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-08/msg00816.php Seems like a good solution to me - I hadn't noticed that patch before posting my complaint. I don't think it's a problem if it logs it multiple times when it happens - I think it's a much bigger problem that it logs it when it didn't actually do anything. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> Fujii - the original goal here was to avoid having a unexplained >> disconnection in the logs. The only way to do this cleanly is to have >> a disconnection reason passed to the walsender, rather than just a >> blind signal. Looks like we need to multiplex or other mechanism. > > That's an idea. But what about the patch that I proposed before? > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-08/msg00816.php Thanks for that. Committed. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On 7 September 2011 11:56, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:Thanks for that. Committed.
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:22 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Fujii - the original goal here was to avoid having a unexplained
>> disconnection in the logs. The only way to do this cleanly is to have
>> a disconnection reason passed to the walsender, rather than just a
>> blind signal. Looks like we need to multiplex or other mechanism.
>
> That's an idea. But what about the patch that I proposed before?
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-08/msg00816.php
This appears to be the patch submitted to the commitfest. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=630 Can this now be marked as committed?
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: > On 7 September 2011 11:56, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > That's an idea. But what about the patch that I proposed before? >> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-08/msg00816.php >> >> Thanks for that. Committed. Thanks! > This appears to be the patch submitted to the commitfest. > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=630 Can this now be > marked as committed? Yes. I did that. Thanks! Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center