On 2019-01-11 09:50:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 04:41:47PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I still think this whole direction of accessing the GUC in walreceiver
> > is a bad idea and shouldn't be pursued further. There's definite
> > potential for startup process and WAL receiver having different states
> > of GUCs, the code doesn't get meaningfully simpler, the GUC value checks
> > in walreceiver make for horrible reporting up the chain.
>
> Did you notice the set of messages from upthread? The code *gets*
> simpler by removing ready_to_display and the need to manipulate the
> non-clobbered connection string sent directly from the startup
> process.
It's a minor simplification for code that's existed for quite a
while. Not worth it.