| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Donald Dong <xdong(at)csumb(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <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" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com" <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com" <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: | 2019-01-11 00:52:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20190111005253.6lkusznxsbhwwpid@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-01-11 09:50:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 04:41:47PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I still think this whole direction of accessing the GUC in walreceiver
> > is a bad idea and shouldn't be pursued further. There's definite
> > potential for startup process and WAL receiver having different states
> > of GUCs, the code doesn't get meaningfully simpler, the GUC value checks
> > in walreceiver make for horrible reporting up the chain.
>
> Did you notice the set of messages from upthread? The code *gets*
> simpler by removing ready_to_display and the need to manipulate the
> non-clobbered connection string sent directly from the startup
> process.
It's a minor simplification for code that's existed for quite a
while. Not worth it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-01-11 00:53:16 | Re: Commitfest delayed: extend it? |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-01-11 00:52:31 | Re: Using Btree to Provide Sorting on Suffix Keys with LIMIT |