| From: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | 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> |
| Subject: | Re: allow online change primary_conninfo |
| Date: | 2020-01-22 15:51:06 |
| Message-ID: | 680971579708266@myt3-e9df8ad73dde.qloud-c.yandex.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
> Yeah, you are right. I was not paying much attention but something
> does not stick here. My understanding is that we should have the WAL
> receiver receive the value it needs to use from the startup process
> (aka via RequestXLogStreaming from xlog.c), and that we ought to make
> this new parameter PGC_POSTMASTER instead of PGC_SIGHUP. HEAD is
> inconsistent here.
Thank you!
I attached two patches:
- first changes wal_receiver_create_temp_slot to PGC_POSTMASTER and moved the logic to RequestXLogStreaming
- second is based on last published v6 version of main patch. It changes wal_receiver_create_temp_slot back to PGC_SIGHUP along with primary_conninfo and primary_slot_name and will restart walreceiver if need.
Regarding the main patch: we have several possibilities for moving RequestXLogStreaming call. We need to choose one.
And, of course, changes in the text...
regards, Sergei
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0002_v7_allow_reload_walreceiver_conninfo.patch | text/x-diff | 15.0 KB |
| 0001_v7_move_temp_slot_logic_to_startup.patch | text/x-diff | 6.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergei Kornilov | 2020-01-22 15:58:46 | Re: pgsql: walreceiver uses a temporary replication slot by default |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-22 15:22:21 | Re: Do we need to handle orphaned prepared transactions in the server? |