From: | Alena Vinter <dlaaren8(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Resetting recovery target parameters in pg_createsubscriber |
Date: | 2025-09-23 05:04:04 |
Message-ID: | CAGWv16KC2RGC30GtpWQc+7yuhr6bnOz7qypb=DGFGQ23C6ARSQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I'm back with improvements :)
I've added code comments in `recovery_gen.c` and expanded the documentation
in `pg_createsubscriber.sgml`.
About the recovery parameters cleanup: I thought about adding an exit
callback, but it doesn't really make sense because once the target server
gets promoted (which happens soon after we set the parameters), there's no
point in cleaning up - the server is already promoted and can't be used as
a replica again and must be recreated. Also, `reset_recovery_params()`
might call `exit()` itself, which could cause problems with the cleanup
callback.
So I think it's better to just warn users about leftover parameters and let
them handle the cleanup manually if needed.
By the way, is it ok that the second patch includes both code and test
changes together, or should I split them into separate commits?
I look forward to your feedback!
Regards,
Alena Vinter
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v5-0002-Reseting-recovery-target-parameters-in-pg_createsubscriber.patch | text/x-patch | 6.4 KB |
v5-0001-Implements-helper-function-in-recovery_gen.patch | text/x-patch | 4.2 KB |
v5-0003-doc-Add-warning-about-leftover-recovery-parameters-in-pg_createsubscriber.patch | text/x-patch | 1.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jian he | 2025-09-23 05:37:44 | Re: let ALTER TABLE DROP COLUMN drop whole-row referenced object |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-09-23 05:02:20 | Re: [PATCH] Introduce unified support for composite GUC options |