| From: | "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: synchronized_standby_slots behavior inconsistent with quorum-based synchronous replication |
| Date: | 2026-04-13 03:54:12 |
| Message-ID: | TYRPR01MB1419563493AAE8B59B2F7C4BF94242@TYRPR01MB14195.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Saturday, April 11, 2026 12:34 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 2:08 PM Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 1:21 PM Hou, Zhijie/侯 志杰
> <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Since we're reusing the same parser for two GUCs that have different
> > > interpretations of one syntax variant (the plain slot list), making
> > > the parser more general is a natural approach, especially given that
> > > the patch is adding new functionality here.
> > >
> > > My main concern is the IsPrioritySyncStandbySlotsSyntax() function.
> > > It introduces additional hard-coded parsing logic that duplicates
> > > what's already implemented in syncrep_gram.y. I'm also concerned
> > > about maintainability, particularly since we already discovered a
> > > bug in the hard-coded parser code [1] and the patch even added a
> > > tap-test (part E) to cover that path. All of this effort could be
> > > avoided by removing this function and leveraging functionality provided by
> the shared parser.
> > >
> >
> > The issue that you are referring to here was without this function.
> >
> > The idea here is to reuse the existing synchronous_standby_names
> > parser as-is, without changing its grammar or parse behavior.
> > synchronized_standby_slots differs only in post-parse interpretation
> > of simple-list syntax, so we add a local helper to disambiguate
> > explicit priority mode from plain lists before applying
> > synchronized_standby_slots semantics.
> >
>
> How about splitting the patch to separate out the ANY configuration as the
> first patch? Then we can focus on the FIRST configuration separately and it
> would be easier to evaluate whether changing the parser for it is worth the
> additional complexity.
+1
For reference only, I'm attaching a top-up patch (on top of v20260408-0001) that
refactors the parsing logic to distinguish between FIRST and plain lists, as
previously discussed.
Best Regards,
Hou zj
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| vPOC-0001-Refactor-the-parsing-code_patch | application/octet-stream | 5.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2026-04-13 04:02:23 | Re: Support EXCEPT for ALL SEQUENCES publications |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-04-13 03:52:59 | Re: test_compression, test module for low-level compression APIs (for 2b5ba2a0a141) |