From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bdrouvot(at)amazon(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add Information during standby recovery conflicts |
Date: | 2020-11-30 18:25:28 |
Message-ID: | 20201130182528.GA1854@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Dec-01, Fujii Masao wrote:
> + if (proc)
> + {
> + if (nprocs == 0)
> + appendStringInfo(&buf, "%d", proc->pid);
> + else
> + appendStringInfo(&buf, ", %d", proc->pid);
> +
> + nprocs++;
>
> What happens if all the backends in wait_list have gone? In other words,
> how should we handle the case where nprocs == 0 (i.e., nprocs has not been
> incrmented at all)? This would very rarely happen, but can happen.
> In this case, since buf.data is empty, at least there seems no need to log
> the list of conflicting processes in detail message.
Yes, I noticed this too; this can be simplified by changing the
condition in the ereport() call to be "nprocs > 0" (rather than
wait_list being null), otherwise not print the errdetail. (You could
test buf.data or buf.len instead, but that seems uglier to me.)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2020-11-30 18:25:35 | Re: Add docs stub for recovery.conf |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-11-30 18:21:15 | Re: Improving spin-lock implementation on ARM. |