Mon Nov 7 20:40:20 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 ]
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. 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... -- output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "ca.afilias.info") <http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/> Christopher Browne (416) 673-4124 (land)
- 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