Re: pending patch: Re: HS/SR and smart shutdown
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pending patch: Re: HS/SR and smart shutdown |
Дата | |
Msg-id | s2v3f0b79eb1003310258waa1bdf87n7de2f903a2a4bd37@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pending patch: Re: HS/SR and smart shutdown (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 17:48 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > Please add some docs that a) explains what the patch does and b) notes >> > any changes from behaviour in previous releases. ISTM this is a major >> > change in behaviour. >> >> How about adding the following description into "17.5. Shutting Down >> the Server"? >> >> If the server is in recovery, it waits for all of the read only >> connections to be closed. > > You need to explain which mode you're talking about. Smart Shutdown mode > Adding minimal > comments isn't my objective. We need good, useful documentation on every > aspect that you add or change. But the patch doesn't provide anything beyond: >> If the server is in recovery, it waits for all of the read only >> connections to be closed. What additional explanation do you think is required? >> And, where should the note be put in? AFAIK, the previous behavior >> has not been documented anywhere. > >> > >From what I have seen, the comment about PM_WAIT_BACKENDS is incorrect. >> > "backends might be waiting for the WAL record that conflicts with their >> > queries to be replayed". Recovery sometimes waits for backends, but >> > backends never wait for recovery. >> >> Really? As Heikki explained before, backends might wait for the lock >> taken by the startup process. >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-01/msg02984.php > > Backends wait for locks, yes, but they could be waiting for user locks > also. That is not "waiting for the WAL record", that concept does not > exist. How about the following change? - * waiting for the WAL record that conflicts with their queries to be - * replayed, recovery and replication need to remain until all read + * waiting until the startup process has released the lock that + * their queries are waiting for by replaying the WAL record, + * recovery and replication need to remain until all read Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: