On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > >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.
Hmm... this is a good point, on two levels. First, the comment is not as well-phrased as it could be. Second, I wonder why we can't kill the startup process and WAL receiver right away, and then wait for the backends to die off afterwards. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
