Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > How to handle situations where the standby goes away for a while,
> > such as a network outage, so that it doesn't block the master from ever
> > cleaning up dead tuples is a concern.
> 
> Yeah, that's another issue that needs to be dealt with. You'd probably
> need some kind of a configurable escape valve in the master, to let it
> ignore a standby's snapshot once it gets too old.
> 
> > But I do know that the current Hot Standby implementation is going to be
> > frustrating to configure correctly for people.
> 
> Perhaps others who are not as deep into the code as I am will have a
> better view on this, but I seriously don't think that's such a big
> issue. I think the max_standby_delay setting is quite intuitive and easy
> to explain. Sure, it would better if there was no tradeoff between
> killing queries and stalling recovery, but I don't think it'll be that
> hard to understand the tradeoff.

Let's look at the five documented cases of query conflict (from our manual):

        1     Access Exclusive Locks from primary node, including both explicit
              LOCK commands and various DDL actions 
        
        2     Dropping tablespaces on the primary while standby queries are
              using those tablespaces for temporary work files (work_mem
              overflow) 
        
        3     Dropping databases on the primary while users are connected to
              that database on the standby.  
        
        4     The standby waiting longer than max_standby_delay to acquire a
              buffer cleanup lock.  
        
        5     Early cleanup of data still visible to the current query's
              snapshot

We might have a solution to #1 by only cancelling queries that try to
take locks.

#2 and #3 seem like rare occurances.

#4 can be controlled by max_standby_delay, where a large value only
delays playback during crash recovery --- again, a rare occurance.

#5 could be handled by using vacuum_defer_cleanup_age on the master.

Why is vacuum_defer_cleanup_age not listed in postgresql.conf?

In summary, I think passing snapshots to the master is not something
possible for 9.0, and ideally we will never need to add that feature.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <br...@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com
  PG East:  http://www.enterprisedb.com/community/nav-pg-east-2010.do
  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to