Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver
От | Nathan Bossart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20221013190954.GA1563962@nathanxps13 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Suppressing useless wakeups in walreceiver
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 12:37:39PM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I think in 0001 we should put more stuff in the state struct -- > specifically these globals: > > static int recvFile = -1; > static TimeLineID recvFileTLI = 0; > static XLogSegNo recvSegNo = 0; > > The main reason is that it seems odd to have startpointTLI in the struct > used in some places together with a file-global recvFileTLI which isn't. > The way one is passed as argument and the other as part of a struct > seemed too distracting. This should reduce the number of moving parts, > ISTM. Makes sense. Do you think the struct should be file-global so that it doesn't need to be provided as an argument to most of the static functions in this file? > One thing that confused me for a moment is that we have some state in > walrcv and some more state in 'state'. The difference is pretty obvious > once you look at the other, but it suggest to me that a better variable > name for the latter is 'localstate' to more obviously distinguish them. Sure, I'll change it to 'localstate'. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: