Re: max_standby_delay considered harmful
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.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: 2010-05-13T03:07:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> I am wondering if we are not correctly handling the case where we get >> a shutdown request while we are still in the PM_STARTUP state. It >> looks like we might go ahead and switch to PM_RECOVERY and then >> PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT without noticing the shutdown. There is some >> logic to handle the shutdown when the startup process exits, but if >> the startup process never exits it looks like we might get stuck. > > Right. I reported this problem and submitted the patch before. > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-04/msg00592.php Sorry we missed that. > Stefan, > Could you check whether the patch fixes the problem you encountered? I think that would be a good thing to check (it'll confirm whether this is the same bug), but I'm not convinced we should actually fix it that way. Prior to 8.4, we handled a smart shutdown during recovery at the conclusion of recovery, just prior to entering normal running. I'm wondering if we shouldn't revert to that behavior in both 8.4 and HEAD. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company