Re: Is Recovery actually paused?

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp
Cc: dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com, bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com, sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
Subject: Re: Is Recovery actually paused?
Date: 2021-02-12 06:24:34
Message-ID: 20210212.152434.2164322318574002072.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:33:32 +0900, Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote in
> I don't think that we need to include the waiting approach in pg_get_wal_replay_pause_state
> patch. However, Horiguchi-san's patch may be useful for some users who want
> pg_wal_replay_pause to wait until recovery gets paused instead of polling the
> state from applications. So, I shink we could discuss this patch in another
> thread as another commitfest entry independent from pg_get_wal_replay_pause_state.

Since what I'm proposing is not making pg_wal_replay_pause() to wait,
and no one seems on my side, I withdraw the proposal.

> I have no futher comments on the v13 patch, too. Also, I agree with
> Robert Haas's suggestions.

Yeah, look reasonable.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2021-02-12 06:28:01 Re: Possible dereference after null check (src/backend/executor/ExecUtils.c)
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2021-02-12 06:21:40 Re: pg_cryptohash_final possible out-of-bounds access (per Coverity)