Re: Is Recovery actually paused?

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Is Recovery actually paused?
Date: 2021-02-24 14:51:32
Message-ID: CAFiTN-vFGDqmONH0A-DiaivYLD+Y9fZ2yqtt7N6gjQH4KqZXJw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 3:25 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>

> > > > The reason for the checkpoint is to move to "paused" state in a
> > > > reasonable time. I think we need to mention that reason rather than
> > > > what is done here.
> > >
> > > I will do that.

I have fixed this.

> > > >
> > > > + /* get the recovery pause state */
> > > > + switch(GetRecoveryPauseState())
> > > > + {
> > > > + case RECOVERY_NOT_PAUSED:
> > > > + state = "not paused";
> > > > + break;
> > > > ...
> > > > + default:
> > > > + elog(ERROR, "invalid recovery pause state");

>
> I think for such cases IMHO the preferred style for PostgreSQL is that
> we add Assert(0) in the default case, at least it appeared to me that
> way.

Added an Assert(0) in default case.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
v15-0001-Provide-a-new-interface-to-get-the-recovery-paus.patch text/x-patch 13.1 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joel Jacobson 2021-02-24 15:23:07 Re: Bizarre behavior of \w in a regular expression bracket construct
Previous Message Floris Van Nee 2021-02-24 14:44:30 non-HOT update not looking at FSM for large tuple update