From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, tushar <tushar(dot)ahuja(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shaun Thomas <shaun(dot)thomas(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Minimal logical decoding on standbys |
Date: | 2019-09-27 17:51:30 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ9QP_hG2YgK=E6uQxoZHeQtViz0rD1c3fqqxw9ED8m=Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 12:41 PM Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Preferably I want wait_for_xmins() to get rid of the $node parameter,
> because we can deduce it using slot name. But that requires having
> get_node_from_slotname(). Your suggestion was to remove
> get_node_from_slotname() and add back the $node param so as to reduce
> duplicate code. Instead, how about keeping wait_for_xmins() in the
> PostgresNode.pm() ? This way, we won't have duplication, and also we
> can get rid of param $node. This is just my preference; if you are
> quite inclined to not have get_node_from_slotname(), I will go with
> your suggestion.
I'd be inclined not to have it. I think having a lookup function to
go from slot name -> node is strange; it doesn't really simplify
things that much for the caller, and it makes the logic harder to
follow. It would break outright if you had the same slot name on
multiple nodes, which is a perfectly reasonable scenario.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Steele | 2019-09-27 17:52:38 | Document recovery_target_action behavior? |
Previous Message | James Coleman | 2019-09-27 17:50:30 | Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort (was: PoC: Partial sort) |