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: | 2020-03-26 06:22:06 |
Message-ID: | 20200326062206.GE1471@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 09:08:12PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> ... as in the attached version.
Patch 0001 is one that has already been discussed previously (thanks
for keeping the extra comments about GUCs and WAL receivers). That
looks fine to me.
> Sergei included LOG messages to indicate which setting has been changed.
> I put these in "#if 0" for now, but I'm thinking to remove these
> altogether; we already have LOG messages when a setting changes value,
> per ProcessConfigFileInternal(); the log sequence looks like this, taken
> from tmp_check/log/001_stream_rep_standby_2.log after running the tests:
Yes, it makes sense to remove any knowledge of GUC updates from
StartupRequestWalReceiverRestart(). I would add a description at the
top of this routine by the way.
+extern void ProcessStartupSigHup(void);
This is declared, but used nowhere in patch 0002.
Wouldn't it be better to be more careful about the NULL-ness of the
string parameters in StartupRereadConfig()?
+ if (!slotnameChanged && strcmp(PrimarySlotName, "") == 0)
+ tempSlotChanged = tempSlot != wal_receiver_create_temp_slot;
I would add parens here for clarity.
> which looks sufficient. Maybe we can reword that new message, say "wal
> receiver process shutdown forced by parameter change". Not sure if we
> can or should adjust the FATAL line; probably not worth the trouble.
There is merit to keep the LOG in StartupRequestWalReceiverRestart()
unchanged, as the routine may get called in the future in some other
context.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-03-26 06:33:42 | Re: error context for vacuum to include block number |
Previous Message | Marco Atzeri | 2020-03-26 05:46:05 | Re: Resolving the python 2 -> python 3 mess |