| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays) |
| Date: | 2022-11-16 08:58:01 |
| Message-ID: | CANbhV-Gn8e9ga0PLTopaJ=GcB-A4gTD=Nii8C2jA_Guwn7uOCQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 16 Nov 2022 at 06:47, Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 10:55 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 8:33 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Please review the v2 patch.
> >
> > It seems to me that this will call disable_startup_progress_timeout
> > once per WAL record, which seems like an unnecessary expense. How
> > about leaving the code inside the loop just as we have it, and putting
> > if (StandbyMode) disable_startup_progress_timeout() before entering
> > the loop?
>
> That can be done, only if we can disable the timeout in another place
> when the StandbyMode is set to true in ReadRecord(), that is, after
> the standby server finishes crash recovery and enters standby mode.
>
> I'm attaching the v3 patch for further review. Please find the CF
> entry here - https://commitfest.postgresql.org/41/4012/.
begin_startup_progress_phase() checks to see if feature is disabled
twice, so I think you can skip the check and just rely on the check in
enable().
Otherwise, all good.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-11-16 08:58:31 | RE: Data is copied twice when specifying both child and parent table in publication |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2022-11-16 08:57:14 | Re: Support logical replication of DDLs |