On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 14:27 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 2:59 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >>> Even though postmaster dies, the waiting backend keeps waiting until > >>> the timeout expires. Instead, the backends should periodically check > >>> whether postmaster is alive, and then they should exit immediately > >>> if it's not alive, as well as other process does? If the timeout is > >>> disabled, such backends would get stuck infinitely. > >> > >> Will wake them every 60 seconds > > > > I don't really see why sync rep should be responsible for solving this > > problem, which is an issue in many other situations as well, only for > > itself. In fact I think I'd prefer that it didn't, and that we wait > > for a more general solution that will actually fix this problem for > > real. > > I agree if such a general solution will be committed together with sync rep. > Otherwise, because of sync rep, the backend can easily get stuck *infinitely*. > When postmaster is not alive, all the existing walsenders exit immediately > and no new walsender can appear. So there is no way to release the > waiting backend. I think that some solutions for this issue which is likely to > happen are required.
Completely agree. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
