From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Is Recovery actually paused? |
Date: | 2021-02-11 09:50:23 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACUpQTUQnO_W-Qr1BzgcOig3pUSaMAJwTqUTNK0BVw4=ZQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 8:39 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:02 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't find any problem with this approach as well, but I personally
> > feel that the other approach where we don't wait in any API and just
> > return the recovery pause state is much simpler and more flexible. So
> > I will make the pending changes in that patch and let's see what are
> > the other opinion and based on that we can conclude. Thanks for the
> > patch.
>
> Here is an updated version of the patch which fixes the last two open problems
> 1. In RecoveryRequiresIntParameter set the recovery pause state in the
> loop so that if recovery resumed and pause requested again we can set
> to pause again.
> 2. If the recovery state is already 'paused' then don't set it back to
> the 'pause requested'.
>
> One more point is that in 'pg_wal_replay_pause' even if we don't
> change the state because it was already set to the 'paused' then also
> we call the WakeupRecovery. But I don't think there is any problem
> with that, if we think that this should be changed then we can make
> SetRecoveryPause return a bool such that if it doesn't do state change
> then it returns false and in that case we can avoid calling
> WakeupRecovery, but I felt that is unnecessary. Any other thoughts on
> this?
IMO, that WakeupRecovery should not be a problem, because even now, if
we issue a simple select pg_reload_conf(); (without even changing any
config parameter), WakeupRecovery gets called.
Thanks for the patch. I tested the new function and it works as
expected. I have no further comments on the v13 patch.
With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2021-02-11 09:50:56 | Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker? |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2021-02-11 09:42:07 | Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker? |