Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context forprimary_conninfo and primary_slot_name
| От | Donald Dong |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context forprimary_conninfo and primary_slot_name |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | F7C348CE-6B7E-4BBC-83E8-091FB6697333@csumb.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context forprimary_conninfo and primary_slot_name (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context forprimary_conninfo and primary_slot_name
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Michael,
Thank you for the information!
> On Dec 11, 2018, at 9:55 PM, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> Well, the conninfo and slot name accessible to the user are the values
> available only once the information of the WAL receiver in shared memory
> is ready to be displayed. Relying more on the GUC context has the
> advantage to never have in shared memory the original string and only
> store the clobbered one, which actually simplifies what's stored in
> shared memory because you can entirely remove ready_to_display (I forgot
> to remove that in the patch actually). If those parameters become
> reloadable, you actually rely only on what the param context has, and
> not on what the shared memory context may have or not.
I wonder why do we need to have this addition?
src/backend/replication/walreceiver.c
+ memset(walrcv->slotname, 0, NAMEDATALEN);
+ if (PrimarySlotName)
+ strlcpy((char *) walrcv->slotname, PrimarySlotName, NAMEDATALEN);
src/backend/replication/walreceiver.c
288: PrimaryConnInfo == NULL || PrimaryConnInfo[0] == '\0'
291: errmsg("cannot connect to the primary server as \"primary_conninfo\" is not defined")));
392: PrimarySlotName && PrimarySlotName[0] != '\0'
src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
11824: * If primary_conninfo is set, launch walreceiver to try
11833: PrimaryConnInfo && strcmp(PrimaryConnInfo, "") != 0
I notice these patterns appear in different places. Maybe it will be better to have a common method such as
pg_str_empty()?
Regards,
Donald Dong
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: