Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTikROUuWYQOLXLW33ETwnywK6Nz_nJcf3LmVBtTe@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: XMin Hot Standby Feedback patch (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 12:15 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> Looks pretty good to me, though I haven't tested it. I like some of >> the safety valves you put in there, but I don't understand this part > > Reworked logic covering all feedback, plus tests, plus docs. > > Last comments before commit please. What happens if someone has hot_standby_feedback on and then turns it off? I think in XLogWalRcvSendReply() you need if (hot_standby_feedback) {stuff } else { reply_message.xmin = InvaidXID; reply_message.epoch = 0; /* or something */ } Also this part looks kludgy to me: + GetNextXidAndEpoch(&nextXid, &nextEpoch); + if (nextXid < reply_message.xmin) + nextEpoch--; How about introducing a GetOldestXminAndEpoch function instead? Would it make sense to avoid grabbing the ProcArrayLock except when we truly need to update MyProc->xmin? ProcessStandbyReplyMessage gets called a lot... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: