Re: Standby catch up state change
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Standby catch up state change |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20131015112154.GF5300@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Standby catch up state change (Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Standby catch up state change
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-10-15 16:29:47 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>wrote: > > > I don't think delaying the message is a good > > idea. > > > Comment in walsender.c says: > > /* > * If we're in catchup state, move to streaming. This is an > * important state change for users to know about, since before > * this point data loss might occur if the primary dies and we > * need to failover to the standby. > */ > > IOW it claims no data loss will occur after this point. But if the WAL is > cached on the master side, isn't this a false claim i.e. the data loss can > still occur even after master outputs the log message and changes the state > to streaming. Or am I still getting it wrong ? I think you're over-intrepreting it. We don't actually rely on the data being confirmed received anywhere. And the message doesn't say anything about everything safely being written out. So, if you want to adjust that comment, go for it, but I am pretty firmly confirmed that this isn't worth changing logic. Note that the ready_to_stop logic *does* make sure everything's flushed. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: