| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: allow online change primary_conninfo |
| Date: | 2019-04-04 02:06:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20190404020605.GE7693@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 12:27:55AM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Not agree. Latest patch version perform walreceiver restart without
> switch to a different method as discussed. Here is no race condition
> between startup process and walreceiver because conninfo passed via
> WalRcvData struct as currently. I miss something important?
> Michael Paquier had no possibility to review latest implementation,
> but did not say this is totally wrong, just asked wait a rather
> close lookup.
I agree with Sergei's statement here. He has sent a patch for review,
which I have looked up a bit, but not enough to provide a full review
unfortunately, and this even if I was listed as a reviewer of it. So
if somebody is to blame here, that's me.
> Of cource we can close this cf entry. I would be happy if someone
> else post proper implementation. And I can rework my implementation
> again, but I don’t know how the correct implementation should look
> or why latest implementation is wrong.
Moving this patch to next CF is fine.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-04-04 02:09:54 | Re: [PATCH v20] GSSAPI encryption support |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2019-04-04 02:05:43 | Re: [HACKERS] Weaker shmem interlock w/o postmaster.pid |