From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | hot standby - further cleanup of recovery procs stuff |
Date: | 2009-08-21 03:00:04 |
Message-ID: | 603c8f070908202000n788e59a8s4102e2cfc2349b4c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I've made a few further cleanups to the hot standby patch:
- UnobservedTransactionsRemoveXids() had an argument called
missing_in_error which was always set to false. So I removed the
argument and the elog().
[It's an interesting question whether this should be considered an
error, but if we're always going to pass false there's no point in
having the check.]
- Fix compiler warnings in ProcArrayDisplay(). On my system this
generated too: one because index was used without initializing it, and
a second because there was no function prototype. index was only used
once; I think it was intended to be the same as xid_index, so I merged
them.
- Reverted all the changes to ProcArrayAdd() and ProcArrayRemove() as
compared with CVS HEAD. Now that RecoveryProcs are gone, none of this
looks to be necessary.
- Modified CreateSharedProcArray() to no longer add MaxBackends to
procArray->maxProcs twice. This appears to be another RecoveryProcs
holdover.
- Adjusted a few comments that previously referred to recovery procs,
and reverted a few other semantically unimportant changes vs. CVS
HEAD.
I am not sure why we have a single GUC to size both the number of
PGPROC structures we allow and the size of UnobservedXids. A
read-only slave might only need to allow a few connections for
reporting purposes, while the master needs to allow many.
Revised patch updated and pushed to my git repo.
...Robert
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
hs-2009-08-20.patch | text/x-patch | 253.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2009-08-21 03:08:33 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |
Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2009-08-21 02:23:15 | Re: WIP: generalized index constraints |