Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] Cascading standby cannot catch up and get stuck emitting the same message repeatedly

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila > I think it beginning of segment (aka the first page of the segment), even > the comment indicates the same. > > /* > * Whenever switching to a new WAL segment, we read the first page

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] Cascading standby cannot catch up and get stuck emitting the same message repeatedly

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 7:51 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila >> It looks like the code in 9.3 or later version uses the recptr as the target >> segment

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] Cascading standby cannot catch up and get stuck emitting the same message repeatedly

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas > Let me try to be more clear. I will not commit this patch if it is not > properly commented. I doubt that anyone else will, either. > > The fact that those code changes already

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] Cascading standby cannot catch up and get stuck emitting the same message repeatedly

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Amit Kapila > It looks like the code in 9.3 or later version uses the recptr as the target > segment location > (targetSegmentPtr) whereas 9.2 uses recptr as beginning of segment (readOff > = 0;).

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] Cascading standby cannot catch up and get stuck emitting the same message repeatedly

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:13 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas >> OK. I agree that's a problem. However, your patch adds zero new comment >> text

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] Cascading standby cannot catch up and get stuck emitting the same message repeatedly

On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas >> OK. I agree that's a problem. However, your patch adds zero new comment >> text

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] Cascading standby cannot catch up and get stuck emitting the same message repeatedly

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Haas > OK. I agree that's a problem. However, your patch adds zero new comment > text while removing some existing comments, so I can't easily tell how it > solves that problem or whether

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] Cascading standby cannot catch up and get stuck emitting the same message repeatedly

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:33 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > The processing went as follows. > > 1. node1's timeline is 140. It wrote a WAL record at the end of WAL segment > 117. The WAL record didn't fit the last page, so it was split across > segments 117

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] Cascading standby cannot catch up and get stuck emitting the same message repeatedly

From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michael Paquier > 9.3 has addressed that by allowing streaming standbys to perform timeline > jumps via the replication protocol. Doesn't this problem enter in this area? IIUC, that new feature

Re: [HACKERS] [bug fix] Cascading standby cannot catch up and get stuck emitting the same message repeatedly

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > Our customer hit a problem of cascading replication, and we found the cause. > They are using the latest PostgreSQL 9.2.18. The bug seems to have been > fixed in 9.4 and higher during the big

[HACKERS] [bug fix] Cascading standby cannot catch up and get stuck emitting the same message repeatedly

Hello, Our customer hit a problem of cascading replication, and we found the cause. They are using the latest PostgreSQL 9.2.18. The bug seems to have been fixed in 9.4 and higher during the big modification of xlog.c, but it's not reflected in older releases. The attached patch is for