| From: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰 <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2026-04-13 08:10:20 |
| Message-ID: | CAE9k0PmfHRT25TG1MqWNhvppyA+_grSAnwxffq7LsV0NV6ik6Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 11, 2026 at 10:04 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 2:08 PM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 1:21 PM Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰 <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Since we're reusing the same parser for two GUCs that have different
> > > interpretations of one syntax variant (the plain slot list), making the parser
> > > more general is a natural approach, especially given that the patch is adding
> > > new functionality here.
> > >
> > > My main concern is the IsPrioritySyncStandbySlotsSyntax() function. It
> > > introduces additional hard-coded parsing logic that duplicates what's already
> > > implemented in syncrep_gram.y. I'm also concerned about maintainability,
> > > particularly since we already discovered a bug in the hard-coded parser code [1]
> > > and the patch even added a tap-test (part E) to cover that path. All of this
> > > effort could be avoided by removing this function and leveraging functionality
> > > provided by the shared parser.
> > >
> >
> > The issue that you are referring to here was without this function.
> >
> > The idea here is to reuse the existing synchronous_standby_names
> > parser as-is, without changing its grammar or parse behavior.
> > synchronized_standby_slots differs only in post-parse interpretation
> > of simple-list syntax, so we add a local helper to disambiguate
> > explicit priority mode from plain lists before applying
> > synchronized_standby_slots semantics.
> >
>
> How about splitting the patch to separate out the ANY configuration as
> the first patch? Then we can focus on the FIRST configuration
> separately and it would be easier to evaluate whether changing the
> parser for it is worth the additional complexity.
>
That sounds like a good approach. I’ll split the current patch into
two parts, with support for the ANY-based syntax being the first
patch, and share it.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2026-04-13 08:16:55 | Re: quoteOneName() inconsistency with quote_all_identifiers — replacement API proposed |
| Previous Message | Yugo Nagata | 2026-04-13 08:05:51 | Re: Track skipped tables during autovacuum and autoanalyze |