Re: allow online change primary_conninfo

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "david(at)pgmasters(dot)net" <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: allow online change primary_conninfo
Date: 2020-03-16 04:16:05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 11:17:38AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> ... oh, that's exactly what 0002 does. So patch 0001 is only about
> making a temporary change to the create_temp_slot to be consistent with
> existing policy, before changing the policy.

Yes. In my opinion, patch 0002 should not change the GUC mode of
wal_receiver_create_temp_slot as the discussion here is about
primary_conninfo, even if both may share some logic regarding WAL
receiver shutdown and its restart triggered by the startup process.

Patch 0001 has actually been presented on this thread first:
And there is an independent patch registered in this CF:

Should we add patch 0001 as an open item for v13 as there is a risk of
forgetting this issue? I have created a wiki blank page a couple of
weeks back:

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2020-03-16 04:26:48 Re: effective_io_concurrency's steampunk spindle maths
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2020-03-16 04:12:58 Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager