Re: Basebackups reported as idle
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Basebackups reported as idle |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevExs++H7Uni2_FxTsxMLSq_XNfVHcHsA+aKtJmMuhguFgg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Basebackups reported as idle (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Basebackups reported as idle
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> What about the attached?
The new positions look good to me, still aren't you missing the case
where a SQL command is found and exec_replication_command returns
false? This should be switched to idle as well.
Yes. Of course. I can't read. That's the same as the notice below about it not returning false -- I managed to miss the extra if() there, and thought it always exited with ERROR.
:O
+ /* Report to pgstat that this process is running */
+ pgstat_report_activity(STATE_RUNNING, NULL);
Bonus points if cmd_string is used instead of string? This way, you
can know what is the replication command running ;)
Do we want that though? That would be a compat break at least, wouldn't it?
> It's still quite a bit weird that we call this process "walsender" when it
> does other things as well. But the ship sailed on that many years ago,
> changing that completely now would not be worth the breakage.
ps shows walsender as well, that's a reason why "walsender" has been decided.
Right. It's just a weird term for what it is. But it's the term that we've always used, so we can't go change it now.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: