| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context for primary_conninfo and primary_slot_name |
| Date: | 2018-12-12 08:50:16 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jK=k9sj_WFedFaGRozbSuE2huMLcJME_36v+WPsBz3N3g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 05:35, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >What do you think about the attached to simplify the logic? Even if
> >primary_conninfo and primary_slot_name are not switched to SIGHUP this
> >cleanup looks like a good thing to me.
>
> I am not convinced this is a good idea. This allows the state of walrcv
> and startup to diverge, they could e.g. have different configuration, due
> to differently time config reloads.
That sounds bad, but most parameters apply to one or the other, not both.
If there are some that apply to both, then yes, coordination would be
important.
It does seem likely that the new scheme will require us to look carefully
at when parameters are reloaded, since the timing of reloads was never
taken into account in the previous coding.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-12-12 09:33:46 | Re: Undo logs |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-12-12 08:03:02 | Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement |