Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Date: 2016-04-06 14:14:19
Message-ID: CAA4eK1L0Ad1+iFaot0q3qN6jg0yx-8tcz1s6wwaCwrj11QdHyg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> >
> >> BTW, we can move SyncRepUpdateConfig() just after ProcessConfigFile()
> >> from pg_stat_get_wal_senders() and every backends always parse the
value
> >> of s_s_names when the setting is changed.
> >>
> >
> > That sounds appropriate, but not sure what is exact place to call it.
>
> Maybe just after the following ProcessConfigFile().
>
> -----------------------------------------
> /*
> * (6) check for any other interesting events that happened while we
> * slept.
> */
> if (got_SIGHUP)
> {
> got_SIGHUP = false;
> ProcessConfigFile(PGC_SIGHUP);
> }
> -----------------------------------------
>
> If we do the move, we also need to either (1) make postmaster call
> SyncRepUpdateConfig() and pass the parsed result to any forked backends
> via a file like write_nondefault_variables() does for EXEC_BACKEND
> environment, or (2) make a backend call SyncRepUpdateConfig() during
> its initialization phase so that the first call of pg_stat_replication
> can use the parsed result. (1) seems complicated and overkill.
> (2) may add very small overhead into the fork of a backend. It would
> be almost negligible, though. So which logic should we adopt?
>

Won't it be possible to have assign_* function
for synchronous_standby_names as we have for some of the other settings
like assign_XactIsoLevel and then call SyncRepUpdateConfig() in that
function?

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-04-06 14:15:59 Re: Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages
Previous Message Dmitry Ivanov 2016-04-06 14:12:24 Re: [PATCH] Phrase search ported to 9.6