On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 17:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 09:40 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> Simon Riggs wrote: > >>> The way this would work is if Startup waits on a buffer pin we > >>> immediately send out a request to all backends to cancel themselves if > >>> they are holding the buffer pin required && waiting on a lock. We then > >>> sleep until max_standby_delay. When max_standby_delay = -1 we only sleep > >>> until deadlock timeout and then check (on the Startup process). > >> Should wake up to check for deadlocks after deadlock_timeout also when > >> max_standby_delay > deadlock_timeout. max_standby_delay could be hours - > >> we want to detect a deadlock sooner than that. > > > > The patch does detect deadlocks sooner that that - "immediately", as > > described above. > > Umm, so why not run the deadlock check immediately in > max_standby_delay=-1 case as well? Why is that case handled differently > from max_standby_delay>0 case?
Cos the code to do that is easy. I'll do the deadlock check immediately and make it even easier. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
