Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTikumNrqEYpfOvT95FWbKFs=nObcM8EEqnZ6jfqr@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:15 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> Looks pretty good to me, though I haven't tested it. I like some of >> the safety valves you put in there, but I don't understand this part > > Reworked logic covering all feedback, plus tests, plus docs. > > Last comments before commit please. When I started the standby with hot_standby = off and hot_standby_feedback = on, I got the following assertion error. ----------------- sby LOG: streaming replication successfully connected to primary TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(((result) >= ((TransactionId) 3)))", File: "procarray.c", Line: 1027) act LOG: unexpected EOF on standby connection sby LOG: WAL receiver process (PID 17572) was terminated by signal 6: Aborted sby LOG: terminating any other active server processes ----------------- vacuum_defer_cleanup_age on the *standby* should not affect the feedback xid. VACUUM TABLE on the *primary* doesn't use the feedback xid at all. Is this intentional? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: