From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: wait event and archive_command |
Date: | 2021-11-18 04:34:57 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACVbPU2sUKS_-ocpSO1=0bvZzpK2oppR5p+bz9xeoQtpJw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 7:53 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> > 1) Can't we determine the wait event type based on commandName in
> > ExecuteRecoveryCommand instead of passing it as an extra param?
>
> Yes, that's possible. But isn't it uglier to make ExecuteRecoveryCommand() have
> the map of command name and wait event? So I feel inclined to avoid adding
> something like the following code into the function... Thought?
>
> if (strcmp(commandName, "recovery_end_command") == 0)
> wait_event_info = WAIT_EVENT_RECOVERY_END_COMMAND;
> else if (strcmp(commandName, "archive_command_command") == 0)
Yeah let's not do that. I'm fine with the
wait_event_for_archive_command_v2.patch as is.
Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-11-18 04:36:50 | Re: pg_upgrade test for binary compatibility of core data types |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-11-18 04:09:53 | Re: postgres_fdw: commit remote (sub)transactions in parallel during pre-commit |