Re: Nicer error when connecting to standby with hot_standby=off
От | James Coleman |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Nicer error when connecting to standby with hot_standby=off |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAAaqYe-Lt-XWbCifZc4XCrKM6x2jgorTggpGWC9y96uDbHvNcw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Nicer error when connecting to standby with hot_standby=off (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Nicer error when connecting to standby with hot_standby=off
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 2:52 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > > > On 2021/03/23 3:25, James Coleman wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:49 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2021/03/19 23:35, James Coleman wrote: > >>> Here's an updated patch; I think I've gotten what Alvaro suggested. > >> > >> Thanks for updating the patch! But I was thinking that our consensus is > >> something like the attached patch. Could you check this patch? > > > > As far as I can tell (I might be missing something) your v5 patch does > > the same thing, albeit with different code organization. It did catch > > though that I'd neglected to add the DETAIL line as separate from the > > errmsg line. > > > > Is the attached (in the style of my v4, since I'm not following why we > > need to move the standby determination logic into a new > > CAC_NOCONSISTENT block) what you're thinking? Or is there something > > else I'm missing? > > I just did that to avoid adding more CAC_state. But basically it's > ok to check hot standby at either canAcceptConnections() or > ProcessStartupPacket(). > > case CAC_STARTUP: > ereport(FATAL, > (errcode(ERRCODE_CANNOT_CONNECT_NOW), > - errmsg("the database system is starting up"))); > + errmsg("the database system is not accepting connections"), > + errdetail("Consistent recovery state has not been yet reached."))); > > Do you want to report this message even in crash recovery? Since crash > recovery is basically not so much related to "consistent recovery state", > at least for me the original message seems more suitable for crash recovery. > > Also if we adopt this message, the server with hot_standby=off reports > "Consistent recovery state has not been yet reached." in PM_STARTUP, > but stops reporting this message at PM_RECOVERY even if the consistent > recovery state has not been reached yet. Instead, it reports "Hot standby > mode is disabled." at PM_RECOVERY. Isn't this transition of message confusing? Are you saying we should only change the message for a single case: the case where we'd otherwise allow connections but EnableHotStandby is false? I believe that's what the original patch did, but then Alvaro's proposal included changing additional messages. James Coleman
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: