Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>

Cc: 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@postgresql.org, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>

Date: 2010-05-10T11:53:52Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I already explained that killing the startup process first is a bad idea
> for many reasons when shutdown was discussed. Can't remember who added
> the new standby shutdown code recently, but it sounds like their design
> was pretty poor if it didn't include shutting down properly with HS. I
> hope they fix the bug they have introduced. HS was never designed to
> work that way, so there is no flaw there; it certainly worked when
> committed.

The patch was written by Fujii Masao and committed, after review, by
me.  Prior to that patch, smart shutdown never worked; now it works,
or so I believe, unless recovery is stalled holding a lock upon which
a regular back-end is blocking.  Clearly that is both better and not
all that good.  If you have any ideas to improve the situation
further, I'm all ears.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company