From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com, cary(dot)huang(at)highgo(dot)ca, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Switching XLog source from archive to streaming when primary available |
Date: | 2022-09-16 06:36:29 |
Message-ID: | 20220916.153629.1624554489607517175.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Fri, 16 Sep 2022 09:15:58 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 1:52 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > At Thu, 15 Sep 2022 10:28:12 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > > I'm attaching the v6 patch that's rebased on to the latest HEAD.
> > > Please consider this for review.
> >
> > Thaks for the new version!
> >
> > +#define StreamingReplRetryEnabled() \
> > + (streaming_replication_retry_interval > 0 && \
> > + StandbyMode && \
> > + currentSource == XLOG_FROM_ARCHIVE)
> >
> > It seems to me a bit too complex..
In other words, it seems to me that the macro name doesn't manifest
the condition correctly.
> I don't think so, it just tells whether a standby is allowed to switch
> source to stream from archive.
>
> > + /* Save the timestamp at which we're switching to archive. */
> > + if (StreamingReplRetryEnabled())
> > + switched_to_archive_at = GetCurrentTimestamp();
> >
> > Anyway we are going to open a file just after this so
> > GetCurrentTimestamp() cannot cause a perceptible degradation.
> > Coulnd't we do that unconditionally, to get rid of the macro?
>
> Do we really need to do it unconditionally? I don't think so. And, we
> can't get rid of the macro, as we need to check for the current
> source, GUC and standby mode. When this feature is disabled, it
> mustn't execute any extra code IMO.
I don't think we don't particularly want to do that unconditionally.
I wanted just to get rid of the macro from the usage site. Even if
the same condition is used elsewhere, I see it better to write out the
condition directly there..
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Richard Guo | 2022-09-16 06:43:04 | Re: [PATCH] Simple code cleanup in tuplesort.c. |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-09-16 06:30:59 | Re: Refactor backup related code (was: Is it correct to say, "invalid data in file \"%s\"", BACKUP_LABEL_FILE in do_pg_backup_stop?) |