| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Donald Dong <xdong(at)csumb(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com" <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com" <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context for primary_conninfo and primary_slot_name |
| Date: | 2019-01-11 00:50:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20190111005049.GA14237@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 04:41:47PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> I still think this whole direction of accessing the GUC in walreceiver
> is a bad idea and shouldn't be pursued further. There's definite
> potential for startup process and WAL receiver having different states
> of GUCs, the code doesn't get meaningfully simpler, the GUC value checks
> in walreceiver make for horrible reporting up the chain.
Did you notice the set of messages from upthread? The code *gets*
simpler by removing ready_to_display and the need to manipulate the
non-clobbered connection string sent directly from the startup
process. In my opinion that's a clear gain. We gain also the
possibility to track down that a WAL receiver is started but not
connected yet for monitoring tools.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-01-11 00:52:31 | Re: Using Btree to Provide Sorting on Suffix Keys with LIMIT |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-01-11 00:41:47 | Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context for primary_conninfo and primary_slot_name |