Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-12-04 Thread Kevin Grittner
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > If the system is completely idle, and no WAL is written, we skip > xlog switches too, even if archive_timeout is set . It would be > pointless to create a stream of WAL files with no content except > for the XLOG_SWITCH records. It's not pointless if you want to mon

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-12-04 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 10:37 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Regarding this item from the wiki page: >>> The "standby delay" is measured as current timestamp - timestamp of last >>> replayed commit record. If there's little activity in the master, that can >>> lead to surp

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-12-04 Thread Simon Riggs
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 10:37 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Regarding this item from the wiki page: > > The "standby delay" is measured as current timestamp - timestamp of last > > replayed commit record. If there's little activity in the master, that can > > lead to surprising results. For ex

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-12-04 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Regarding this item from the wiki page: > The "standby delay" is measured as current timestamp - timestamp of last > replayed commit record. If there's little activity in the master, that can > lead to surprising results. For example, imagine that max_standby_delay is > set to 8 hours. The stand

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-12-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > Hmm, what happens if someone enables wal_standby_info in postgresql.conf > while the server is shutdown. It would still be a valid starting point > in that case. Yeah, true. > I'll just make a note, I think. Yeah, a manual (or automatic, if you just wait) checkpoint will pro

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-12-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 16:41 +, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 20:26 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > commit 02c3eadb766201db084b668daa271db4a900adc9 > > > Author: Simon Riggs > > > Date: Sat Nov 28 06:23:33 2009 + > > > > > > Added wal_standb

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-12-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 20:26 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > commit 02c3eadb766201db084b668daa271db4a900adc9 > > Author: Simon Riggs > > Date: Sat Nov 28 06:23:33 2009 + > > > > Added wal_standby_info GUC to turn RM_STANDBY_ID messages on/off. > > Various co

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-12-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 12:49 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >> If a read-only transaction holds a lot of locks, consuming so much >> lock space that there's none left for the startup process to hold the >> lock it wants, it will abort and bring down postmaster. The patch >>

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-12-02 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 12:49 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > If a read-only transaction holds a lot of locks, consuming so much > lock space that there's none left for the startup process to hold the > lock it wants, it will abort and bring down postmaster. The patch > attempts to kill any confl

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-12-02 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> @@ -654,10 +656,13 @@ LockAcquire(const LOCKTAG *locktag, >> elog(PANIC, "lock table corrupted"); >> } >> LWLockRelease(partitionLock); >> -ereport(ERROR, >> -

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-12-01 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > commit 02c3eadb766201db084b668daa271db4a900adc9 > Author: Simon Riggs > Date: Sat Nov 28 06:23:33 2009 + > > Added wal_standby_info GUC to turn RM_STANDBY_ID messages on/off. > Various comments added also. > This patch makes it unsafe to start hot standby mode

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-11-30 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
Simon Riggs wrote: > @@ -654,10 +656,13 @@ LockAcquire(const LOCKTAG *locktag, > elog(PANIC, "lock table corrupted"); > } > LWLockRelease(partitionLock); > - ereport(ERROR, > - (errcode(ERRCODE_OUT_OF_

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-11-27 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 13:00 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I've put up a wiki page with the issues I see with the patch as it > stands. They're roughly categorized by seriousness. > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot_Standby_TODO > > New issues can and probably will still pop up, let's add

Re: [HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-11-25 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 13:00 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > I've put up a wiki page with the issues I see with the patch as it > stands. They're roughly categorized by seriousness. > > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot_Standby_TODO > > New issues can and probably will still pop up, let's add

[HACKERS] Hot Standby remaining issues

2009-11-25 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
I've put up a wiki page with the issues I see with the patch as it stands. They're roughly categorized by seriousness. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hot_Standby_TODO New issues can and probably will still pop up, let's add them to the list as they're found so that we know what still needs to be