Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15
От | Nathan Bossart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20230202200957.GA3944544@nathanxps13 обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15 (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Weird failure with latches in curculio on v15
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 02, 2023 at 01:24:15PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 09:34:44PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I was vaguely wondering about removing both of those functions >> in favor of an integrated function that does a system() call >> with those things before and after it. > > It seems to me that this is pretty much the same as storing > in_restore_command in shell_restore.c, and that for recovery modules > this comes down to the addition of an extra callback called in > startup.c to check if the flag is up or not. Now the patch is doing > things the opposite way: like on HEAD, store the flag in startup.c but > switch it at will with the routines in startup.c. I find the approach > of the patch a bit more intuitive, TBH, as that makes the interface > simpler for other recovery modules that may want to switch the flag > back-and-forth, and I suspect that there may be cases in recovery > modules where we'd still want to switch the flag, but not necessarily > link it to system(). Hm. I don't know if we want to encourage further use of in_restore_command since it seems to be prone to misuse. Here's a v2 that demonstrateѕ Tom's idea (bikeshedding on names and comments is welcome). I personally like this approach a bit more. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: