Re: Allow some recovery parameters to be changed with reload
От | Sergei Kornilov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Allow some recovery parameters to be changed with reload |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3090621585393698@myt5-1466095fe4e5.qloud-c.yandex.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Allow some recovery parameters to be changed with reload (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Allow some recovery parameters to be changed with reload
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hello I want to return to this discussion, since primary_conninfo is now PGC_SIGHUP (and I hope will not be reverted) > On 2019-02-08 09:19:31 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 11:06:27PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> > Probably right. I figured it would be useful to see what the outcome is >> > with primary_conninfo, so they can be treated similarly. >> >> The interactions with waiting for WAL to be available and the WAL >> receiver stresses me a bit for restore_command, as you could finish >> with the startup process switching to use restore_command with a WAL >> receiver still working behind and overwriting partially the recovered >> segment, which could lead to corruption. We should be *very* careful >> about that. > > I'm not clear on the precise mechanics you're imagining here, could you > expand a bit? We kill the walreceiver when switching from receiver to > restore command, and wait for it to acknowledge that, no? > C.F. ShutdownWalRcv() call in the lastSourceFailed branch of > WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable(). So... We call restore_command only when walreceiver is stopped. We use restore_command only in startup process - so we have no race condition between processes. We have some issues here? Or we can just make restore_command reloadable as attached? regards, Sergei
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: