| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, david(at)fetter(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How to reliably detect if it's a promoting standby |
| Date: | 2010-10-20 14:35:07 |
| Message-ID: | 4CBEFE1B.7050505@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 20.10.2010 17:32, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> pg_is_in_recovery() returns a bool, are you proposing to change that?
>>
>> No. I just thought about adding more condition when it returns true.
>
> Here is the patch. Comments are welcome!
>...
> Datum
> pg_is_in_recovery(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
> {
> ! /* use volatile pointer to prevent code rearrangement */
> ! volatile WalRcvData *walrcv = WalRcv;
> !
> ! PG_RETURN_BOOL(RecoveryInProgress()&& walrcv->walRcvState == WALRCV_RUNNING);
> }
>
This returns 'false' if you're in hot standby mode running against an
archive. That seems wrong, I don't think the walreceiver state should
play any role in this.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-10-20 14:40:15 | Re: max_wal_senders must die |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-10-20 14:32:49 | Re: max_wal_senders must die |