Mon Nov 7 22:53:00 PST 2005
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] does slony work with postgres 8.1 ?
- Next message: [Slony1-general] does slony work with postgres 8.1 ?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 11/7/2005 3:40 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: > Hannu Krosing <hannu at skype.net> writes: >> On E, 2005-11-07 at 07:29 -0500, Jan Wieck wrote: >>> On 11/7/2005 4:11 AM, Hannu Krosing wrote: >>> > On L, 2005-11-05 at 12:48 +0000, Dave Page wrote: >>> >> It doesn't :-( >>> > >>> > What are the issues ? >>> > >>> > Is anybody working on it ? >>> >>> The issue is a change in a backend internal interface function to >>> LISTEN/NOTIFY, that we use to cleanup stale pg_listener entries after a >>> postmaster crash. I do have a plan and am working on it. Fixes will be >>> applied to HEAD and 1_1_STABLE soon. >> >> Would it be worthwhile to change postgresql (too late for 8.1 but >> maybe for 8.2 if LISTEN/NOTIFY is not completely rewritten there) by >> adding "TRUNACTE PG_LISTENER;" to postgresql's startup code and also >> in cleanup after kill -9 initiated restarts ? > > That seems overly aggressive, and I'm not sure it would work anyways. > > The upcoming problem is that pg_listener won't be tracking PIDs the > same way, and we use the PIDs at present to detect whether a > particular node is "claimed" by a slon process yet. This isn't entirely accurate. The current problem is just that the call to Async_Unlisten() lost its pid argument, so one backend cannot remove stale entries from another one any more via this call. As a quick workaround we could have done a DELETE FROM pg_listener ... instead, but since we can already foresee that we're going to get into trouble with that again as soon as the 8.2 rewrite of LISTEN/NOTIFY removes that relation eventually, I think it is better to reimplement our interlock together with the underlying information for terminating all node connections on failover completely right now. Jan > > Truncating pg_listener is beside the point; the problem is that, in > 8.1, we lose the "interlock" where pg_listener is used to have each > node uniquely claim its node. > > By 8.2, I don't think we'll be using LISTEN/NOTIFY the way we are at > present... -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck at Yahoo.com #
- Previous message: [Slony1-general] does slony work with postgres 8.1 ?
- Next message: [Slony1-general] does slony work with postgres 8.1 ?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Slony1-general mailing list