Re: Basebackups reported as idle

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Basebackups reported as idle
Date: 2017-12-22 01:31:37
Message-ID: 20171222013137.GA11060@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:46:15PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>> I think that the call to pgstat_report_activity in WalSndLoop() should
>> be kept as well. There is a small gap between the moment the process
>> is started and the first replication command is run.
>>
>
> Eh. But WalSndLoop() is called *after* exec_replication_command(), isn't
> it? exec_replication_command() is called from PostgresMain(), and then
> calls WalSndLoop().
>
> So I agree there is a small gap, but actually moving it to
> exec_replication_command() makes that gap smaller than it was before, no?

My turn to read things wrong then, thinking that WalSndLoop() was the
main routine used for starting the WAL sender process. You are right removing
the call there is adapted.

Could you update the patch?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2017-12-22 01:35:34 Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-12-22 01:29:46 Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning