From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays) |
Date: | 2022-11-16 09:35:24 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACWcNUQL4gxiS0ZWAmAdmHBuCx3_DXeJN4gkW6ruR=ruCw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 2:28 PM Simon Riggs
<simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 at 06:47, Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 10:55 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:33 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > > <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > Please review the v2 patch.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that this will call disable_startup_progress_timeout
> > > once per WAL record, which seems like an unnecessary expense. How
> > > about leaving the code inside the loop just as we have it, and putting
> > > if (StandbyMode) disable_startup_progress_timeout() before entering
> > > the loop?
> >
> > That can be done, only if we can disable the timeout in another place
> > when the StandbyMode is set to true in ReadRecord(), that is, after
> > the standby server finishes crash recovery and enters standby mode.
> >
> > I'm attaching the v3 patch for further review. Please find the CF
> > entry here - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/41/4012/.
>
> begin_startup_progress_phase() checks to see if feature is disabled
> twice, so I think you can skip the check and just rely on the check in
> enable().
Yes, I did that intentionally to avoid begin_startup_progress_phase()
calling disable and enable functions when the feature is disabled.
I'll leave it to the committer whether to retain it or delete it.
> Otherwise, all good.
Thanks.
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Himanshu Upadhyaya | 2022-11-16 09:50:35 | Re: HOT chain validation in verify_heapam() |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2022-11-16 09:34:58 | Re: pg_basebackup's --gzip switch misbehaves |