Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication
От | Dilip Kumar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFiTN-tzW+pFXGh-NqZCJmBGPsd2EHtvYvSxvsZTH7=cWsdPMw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication (Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>) |
Ответы |
Re: An attempt to avoid locally-committed-but-not-replicated-to-standby-transactions in synchronous replication
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 4:39 PM Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> wrote: > > On 9 May 2022, at 14:44, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > IMHO, making it wait for some amount of time, based on GUC is not a > > complete solution. It is just a hack to avoid the problem in some > > cases. > > Disallowing cancelation of locally committed transactions is not a hack. It's removing of a hack that was erroneously installedto make backend responsible to Ctrl+C (or client side statement timeout). I might be missing something but based on my understanding the approach is not disallowing the query cancellation but it is just adding the configuration for how much to delay before canceling the query. That's the reason I mentioned that this is not a guarenteed solution. I mean with this configuration value also you can not avoid problems in all the cases, right? -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: