From: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: allow online change primary_conninfo |
Date: | 2019-04-03 21:27:55 |
Message-ID: | 5312141554326875@sas1-063d61d846d8.qloud-c.yandex.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi
>> > I think we unfortunately got to mark this as returned with
>> > feedback. I've not done so, but just switched the entry to waiting on
>> > author.
>>
>> Why returned with feedback? Why waiting on author? I didn't receive a
>> feedback for latest published patch version. What can I do as author?
>> Patch still applied (thanks cf bot) Obviously too late for pg12, but
>> why can not be target pg13 and therefore be moved to next CF?
>
> Well, my impression was that the patch didn't yet really address the
> feedback. And thus should have been marked as waiting on author for a
> while.
Not agree. Latest patch version perform walreceiver restart without switch to a different method as discussed. Here is no race condition between startup process and walreceiver because conninfo passed via WalRcvData struct as currently. I miss something important?
Michael Paquier had no possibility to review latest implementation, but did not say this is totally wrong, just asked wait a rather close lookup.
Of cource we can close this cf entry. I would be happy if someone else post proper implementation. And I can rework my implementation again, but I don’t know how the correct implementation should look or why latest implementation is wrong.
regards, Sergei
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2019-04-03 21:41:36 | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |
Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2019-04-03 21:24:34 | Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb |