Re: Basebackups reported as idle
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Basebackups reported as idle |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABUevEzG5cj9UKPWyALh+u+AV09ReOFZcdFsv1aJT+EqwMMZ5g@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 Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
I think that the call to pgstat_report_activity in WalSndLoop() should
be kept as well. There is a small gap between the moment the process
is started and the first replication command is run.
Eh. But WalSndLoop() is called *after* exec_replication_command(), isn't it? exec_replication_command() is called from PostgresMain(), and then calls WalSndLoop().
So I agree there is a small gap, but actually moving it to exec_replication_command() makes that gap smaller than it was before, no?
>> + /* 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?
Perhaps not, I found the idea funky but you actually don't want to
show a string in exec_replication_command for a T_SQLCmd node. That's
not complicated to check either. So let's discard such a thing for
now.
Agreed :)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: