hot standby - further cleanup of recovery procs stuff

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: hot standby - further cleanup of recovery procs stuff
Date: 2009-08-21 03:00:04
Message-ID: 603c8f070908202000n788e59a8s4102e2cfc2349b4c@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I've made a few further cleanups to the hot standby patch:

- UnobservedTransactionsRemoveXids() had an argument called
missing_in_error which was always set to false. So I removed the
argument and the elog().
[It's an interesting question whether this should be considered an
error, but if we're always going to pass false there's no point in
having the check.]
- Fix compiler warnings in ProcArrayDisplay(). On my system this
generated too: one because index was used without initializing it, and
a second because there was no function prototype. index was only used
once; I think it was intended to be the same as xid_index, so I merged
them.
- Reverted all the changes to ProcArrayAdd() and ProcArrayRemove() as
compared with CVS HEAD. Now that RecoveryProcs are gone, none of this
looks to be necessary.
- Modified CreateSharedProcArray() to no longer add MaxBackends to
procArray->maxProcs twice. This appears to be another RecoveryProcs
holdover.
- Adjusted a few comments that previously referred to recovery procs,
and reverted a few other semantically unimportant changes vs. CVS
HEAD.

I am not sure why we have a single GUC to size both the number of
PGPROC structures we allow and the size of UnobservedXids. A
read-only slave might only need to allow a few connections for
reporting purposes, while the master needs to allow many.

Revised patch updated and pushed to my git repo.

...Robert

Attachment Content-Type Size
hs-2009-08-20.patch text/x-patch 253.4 KB

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2009-08-21 03:08:33 Re: WIP: generalized index constraints
Previous Message Brendan Jurd 2009-08-21 02:23:15 Re: WIP: generalized index constraints