| From: | Donald Dong <xdong(at)csumb(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, sk(at)zsrv(dot)org, 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: | 2019-01-10 01:38:53 |
| Message-ID: | D0125B78-605C-4FC4-9B6A-6EED314A0326@csumb.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 9, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> That's much cleaner to me to clean up the field for safety before
> starting the process. When requesting a WAL receiver to start,
> slotname and conninfo gets zeroed before doing anything, you are right
> that we could do without it actually.
Cool! I agree that cleaning up the field would make the logic cleaner.
> That's a pattern used quite a lot for many GUCs, so that's quite
> separate from this patch. Perhaps it would make sense to have a macro
> for that purpose for GUCs, I am not sure if that's worth it though.
Yeah. I think having such macro would make the code a bit cleaner. Tho the
duplication of logic is not too significant.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2019-01-10 01:41:56 | Re: Query with high planning time at version 11.1 compared versions 10.5 and 11.0 |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-01-10 01:38:32 | Re: Misleading panic message in backend/access/transam/xlog.c |