Re: Stefan's bug (was: max_standby_delay considered harmful)

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>

Date: 2010-05-17T10:41:46Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 06:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 3:13 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 21:25 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> >> I have what I believe is
> >> an equivalent but simpler implementation, which is attached.
> >
> > There's no code comments to explain this, so without in-depth analysis
> > of the problem, Masao's patch and this one its not possible to say
> > anything.
> >
> > Please explain in detail why its the right approach and put that in a
> > comment, so we'll understand now and in the future.
> 
> The explanation is what I wrote in my previous email: a smart shutdown
> request during recovery should be treated the same way BEFORE the
> postmaster has been asked to start the background writer and AFTER the
> postmaster has been asked to start the background writer.  I'll think
> up a suitable comment.

I think we should review Masao's patch and ask him to make any changes
we think are appropriate. There's no benefit to have multiple patch
authors at one time.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com