Re: Basebackups reported as idle

On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Michael Paquier
> > <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Yes. Of course. I can't read. That's the same as the notice below about
> it
> > not returning false -- I managed to miss the extra if() there, and
> thought
> > it always exited with ERROR.
>
> I think that the call to pgstat_report_activity in WalSndLoop() should
> be kept as well. There is a small gap between the moment the process
> is started and the first replication command is run.
>

Eh. But WalSndLoop() is called *after* exec_replication_command(), isn't
it? exec_replication_command() is called from PostgresMain(), and then
calls WalSndLoop().

So I agree there is a small gap, but actually moving it to
exec_replication_command() makes that gap smaller than it was before, no?

>
> >> + /* Report to pgstat that this process is running */
> >> + pgstat_report_activity(STATE_RUNNING, NULL);
> >> Bonus points if cmd_string is used instead of string? This way, you
> >> can know what is the replication command running ;)
> >
> > Do we want that though? That would be a compat break at least, wouldn't
> it?
>
> Perhaps not, I found the idea funky but you actually don't want to
> show a string in exec_replication_command for a T_SQLCmd node. That's
> not complicated to check either. So let's discard such a thing for
> now.
>

Agreed :)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>