From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: walsender.c fileheader comment |
Date: | 2024-07-19 13:25:18 |
Message-ID: | ba1295b3-0d74-4fd1-b244-6f81bbb6061e@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/19/24 07:02, Peter Smith wrote:
> ...
>>
>> To conclude, I think this probably makes the comments more confusing. If
>> we want to make it clearer, I'd probably start by clarifying what the
>> "stopping" state means. Also, it's a bit surprising we may not actually
>> go through the "stopping" state during shutdown.
>>
>
> I agree. My interpretation of the (ambiguous) "stopping" state led me
> to believe the comment was quite wrong. So, this thread was only
> intended as a trivial comment fix in passing but clearly there is more
> to this than I anticipated. I would be happy if someone with more
> knowledge about the WALSNDSTATE_STOPPING versus got_STOPPING could
> disambiguate the file header comment, but that's not me, so I have
> withdrawn this from the Commitfest.
>
Understood. Thanks for the patch anyway, I appreciate you took the time
to try to improve the comments!
I agree the state transitions in walsender are not very clear, and the
fact that it may shutdown without ever going through STOPPING state is
quite confusing. That being said, I personally don't have ambition to
improve this.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-07-19 13:26:39 | Re: Things I don't like about \du's "Attributes" column |
Previous Message | Christoph Berg | 2024-07-19 13:24:24 | Re: Set log_lock_waits=on by default |