On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 17:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Umm, so why not run the deadlock check immediately in
> max_standby_delay=-1 case as well? Why is that case handled differently
> from max_standby_delay>0 case?
Done, tested, working.
Will commit tomorrow if no further questions or c
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 17:50 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 09:40 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >>> The way this would work is if Startup waits on a buffer pin we
> >>> immediately send out a request to all backends to can
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 09:40 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> The way this would work is if Startup waits on a buffer pin we
>>> immediately send out a request to all backends to cancel themselves if
>>> they are holding the buffer pin required && waiti
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 09:40 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > The way this would work is if Startup waits on a buffer pin we
> > immediately send out a request to all backends to cancel themselves if
> > they are holding the buffer pin required && waiting on a lock. We then
Simon Riggs wrote:
> The way this would work is if Startup waits on a buffer pin we
> immediately send out a request to all backends to cancel themselves if
> they are holding the buffer pin required && waiting on a lock. We then
> sleep until max_standby_delay. When max_standby_delay = -1 we only
Greg Stark has requested that I re-add max_standby_delay = -1.
I deferred that in favour of relation-specific conflict resolution,
though that seems too major a change from comments received.
As discussed in various other posts, in order to re-add the -1 option we
need to add deadlock detection. I
