On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 17:27 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> And,, I found one bug ;) You seem to have wrongly removed the check >> of max_wal_senders in SyncRepWaitForLSN. This can make the >> backend wait for replication even if max_wal_senders = 0. I could produce >> this problematic situation in my machine. The attached patch fixes this >> problem. > > There may be a bug, but that's not the fix. > > I spotted that issue myself in testing. I put in a protection to stop > setting synchronous_standby_names if max_wal_senders is zero, with error > message. > > Are you saying the committed version doesn't trigger that ERROR?
I changed synchronous_standby_names after startup and reloaded the configuration file. So I didn't encounter such an error message. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers