From: | "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amul Sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Deduplicate code updating ControleFile's DBState. |
Date: | 2021-09-21 16:13:24 |
Message-ID: | 558D6677-69B6-4D2C-BE0A-D41049214FE2@amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/20/21, 10:07 PM, "Amul Sul" <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:44 AM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 9/19/21, 11:07 PM, "Amul Sul" <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > I have one additional concern about the way we update the control
>> > file, at every place where doing the update, we need to set control
>> > file update time explicitly, why can't the time update line be moved
>> > to UpdateControlFile() so that time gets automatically updated?
>>
>> I see a few places where UpdateControlFile() is called without
>> updating ControlFile->time. I haven't found any obvious reason for
>> that, so perhaps it would be okay to move it to update_controlfile().
>>
>
> Ok, thanks, did the same in the attached version.
void
UpdateControlFile(void)
{
+ ControlFile->time = (pg_time_t) time(NULL);
update_controlfile(DataDir, ControlFile, true);
}
Shouldn't we update the time in update_controlfile()? Also, can you
split this change into two patches (i.e., one for the timestamp change
and another for the refactoring)? Otherwise, this looks reasonable to
me.
Nathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | 蔡梦娟 (玊于) | 2021-09-21 16:14:49 | 回复:Queries that should be canceled will get stuck on secure_write function |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-09-21 16:06:52 | Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file |