Re: ACK from walreceiver to walsender
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ACK from walreceiver to walsender |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3f0b79eb1001080104j3559ae5cp87e4ae78fd1115f8@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ACK from walreceiver to walsender (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: ACK from walreceiver to walsender
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > Fujii Masao wrote: >> Hi Heikki, >> >> http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=users/heikki/postgres.git;a=commit;h=ebaa89ce8906e0ec45f105d083a0360b1f8bc7ca >> >> You dropped all the ACKs from walreceiver to walsender. I have no objection >> to that, but I think that walsender should handle at least 'X' (which means >> that the standby is closing down the socket) and EOF (which means unexpected >> loss of standby connection) messages from walreceiver. Otherwise, walsender >> might be unable to detect the shutdown of walreceiver for a while. > > Yeah, I just noticed that myself :-(. I guess we'll still have to use > select() in the walreceiver loop to detect that then. > > I don't think we need to treat 'X' differently from EOF. You get an > error anyway if the write() fails. That's actually a bit annoying, you > get a "could not send data to client" error in the log every time a > standby disconnects for any reason. Yes. And, when walreceiver exits, it sends 'X' message by calling PQfinish(). So I think it's neater for walsender to treat also 'X'. Thought? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: