Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2016 16:49:03 -0800
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
	pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add support for temporary replication slots
Message-ID: <20161213004903.iito2pefdrrjgny5@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <E1cGRP8-0003EH-So@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <27274.1481557380@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <27833.1481558144@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <62935e6f-4f1b-c433-e0fa-7f936a38b3e5@2ndquadrant.com>
 <22907.1481571177@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <15713.1481585953@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <314cae39-2e7d-f5a3-d226-cfb80cf80481@2ndquadrant.com>
 <18684.1481589637@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <48b2c017-695d-b5ac-2ff4-89b939b3e8f9@2ndquadrant.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <48b2c017-695d-b5ac-2ff4-89b939b3e8f9@2ndquadrant.com>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-committers-owner@postgresql.org

On 2016-12-13 01:42:48 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote:
> On 13/12/16 01:40, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Petr Jelinek <petr.jelinek@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> >> On 13/12/16 00:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Hm, buildfarm says this didn't fix it.  Where exactly does the dropping
> >>> of the slot happen ... is it not complete by the time the backend exits?
> > 
> >> Yes, I've seen. The cleanup of slots is done in ProcKill(), I wonder,
> >> since it's on_shmem_exit hook, and the pgstat_beshutdown_hook is as
> >> well, maybe the pgstat_beshutdown_hook is called before ProcKill and the
> >> query is lucky to hit right in between.
> > 
> > Hm.  That seems like a pretty bogus place to do it.  An awful lot of the
> > backend infrastructure is already gone by then, if I recall the ordering
> > correctly.  Maybe ShutdownPostgres would be a saner place; but it really
> > depends on what you think the module layering is for this facility.
> > I would definitely not think it is proc.c's responsibility, though.
> > 
> 
> Well, the problem is that that's the place where the currently active
> slot is released (if there was an active one). So we'd need to move that
> part somewhere else as well. I am not sure what's the reasoning for
> releasing it at that specific spot so CCing Andres.

Why don't we just instead make the loop over pg_replication_slots?

Andres


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