RE: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
От | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Дата | |
Msg-id | OS0PR01MB5716C0B9B93CE2F51C51C90D945F2@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby (Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
RE: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday, February 28, 2024 7:36 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 02:23:27AM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > > Attach the V100 patch set which addressed above comments. > > A few random comments: Thanks for the comments! > > 1 === > > + if (!ok) > + { > + GUC_check_errdetail("List syntax is invalid."); > + } > > What about to get rid of the brackets here? I personally prefer the current style. > > 2 === > > + > + /* > + * If the replication slots' data have been initialized, verify if the > + * specified slots exist and are logical slots. > + */ > > remove the empty line above the comment? I feel it would be clean to have an empty line before the comments. > > 3 === > > +check_standby_slot_names(char **newval, void **extra, GucSource source) > +{ > + if ((*newval)[0] == '\0') > + return true; > > I think "**newval == '\0'" is easier to read but that's a matter of taste and > check_synchronous_standby_names() is already using the same so it's a nit. I don't have a strong opinion on this, so will change if others also feel so. > > 4 === > > Regarding the test, what about adding one to test the "new" behavior > discussed up-thread? (logical replication will wait if slot mentioned in > standby_slot_names is dropped and/or does not exist when the engine starts?) Will think about this. Best Regards, Hou zj
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: