Re: Remaining Streaming Replication Open Items
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2010-04-06T16:54:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> * Fix things so that any such variables inherited from the server environment are intentionally *NOT* used for making SR connections. >> >> Drop. Besides, we have the same problem with dblink, and I don't recall >> anyone complaining. > Yep, but I don't think that dblink has the same issue because it's often > used to connect to another database on the same postgres instance, which > seems proper method. Yes, dblink is a poor precedent to cite because self-connections are a sane behavior in its case. > The problem is that walreceiver might wrongly connect > to *its* server and get stuck because no WAL records arrive for ever. > Since currently we don't allow the standby to accept the replication > connection, the problem will not happen in 9.0, and ISTM we don't need > to address it right now. So I agree to drop. Agreed, this can be put off until we support relay replication. I think it will be an issue then, however. regards, tom lane