Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(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>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Date: 2016-04-06 08:04:33
Message-ID: CAB7nPqTeSCjCBBOapsCaBymHDjkhuiNjG=KSdr1m7UOHdPUkng@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Here are few things I have noticed:
> + for (i = 0; i < max_wal_senders; i++)
> + {
> + walsnd = &WalSndCtl->walsnds[i];
> No volatile pointer to prevent code reordering?
>
> */
> typedef struct WalSnd
> {
> + int slotno; /* index of this slot in WalSnd array */
> pid_t pid; /* this walsender's process id, or 0 */
> slotno is used nowhere.
>
> I'll grab the tests and look at them.

So I had a look at those tests and finished with the attached:
- patch 1 adds a reload routine to PostgresNode
- patch 2 the list of tests.

I took the tests from patch 21 and did many tweaks on them:
- Use of qq() instead of quotes
- Removal of hardcoded newlines
- typo fixes and sanity fixes
- etc.
Regards,
--
Michael

Attachment Content-Type Size
2_n_sync_tests.patch invalid/octet-stream 4.7 KB
1_add_reload_routine.patch invalid/octet-stream 590 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2016-04-06 08:07:47 Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Previous Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2016-04-06 08:01:51 Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2