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

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>

From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>

To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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: 2010-05-24T05:27:25Z

Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

fix_smart_shutdown_in_recovery_v4_fujii.patch (application/octet-stream) patch v4

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Oh, right. How about allowing the postmaster only in PM_STARTUP,
>>> PM_RECOVERY, PM_HOT_STANDBY or PM_WAIT_READONLY state to invoke
>>> walreceiver? We can keep walreceiver alive until all read only
>>> backends have gone, and prevent unexpected startup of walreceiver.
>>
>> Yes, that seems like something we should be checking, if we aren't already.
>
> I'll do that.

Here is the updated version. I added the above-mentioned check
into the patch.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center