On Wednesday, March 6, 2024 9:30 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 4:21 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, March 1, 2024 2:11 PM Masahiko Sawada
> <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > +void
> > > +assign_standby_slot_names(const char *newval, void *extra) {
> > > + List *standby_slots;
> > > + MemoryContext oldcxt;
> > > + char *standby_slot_names_cpy = extra;
> > > +
> > >
> > > Given that the newval and extra have the same data
> > > (standby_slot_names value), why do we not use newval instead? I
> > > think that if we use newval, we don't need to guc_strdup() in
> > > check_standby_slot_names(), we might need to do list_copy_deep()
> > > instead, though. It's not clear to me as there is no comment.
> >
> > I think SplitIdentifierString will modify the passed in string, so
> > we'd better not pass the newval to it, otherwise the stored guc
> > string(standby_slot_names) will be changed. I can see we are doing
> > similar thing in other GUC check/assign function as well.
> > (check_wal_consistency_checking/ assign_wal_consistency_checking,
> > check_createrole_self_grant/ assign_createrole_self_grant ...).
>
> Why does it have to be a List in the first place?
I thought the List type is convenient to use here, as we have existing list
build function(SplitIdentifierString), and have convenient list macro to loop
the list(foreach_ptr) which can save some codes.
> In earlier version patches, we
> used to copy the list and delete the element until it became empty, while
> waiting for physical wal senders. But we now just refer to each slot name in the
> list. The current code assumes that stnadby_slot_names_cpy is allocated in
> GUCMemoryContext but once it changes, it will silently get broken. I think we
> can check and assign standby_slot_names in a similar way to
> check/assign_temp_tablespaces and
> check/assign_synchronous_standby_names.
Yes, we could do follow it by allocating an array and copy each slot name into
it, but it also requires some codes to build and scan the array. So, is it possible
to expose the GucMemorycontext or have an API like guc_copy_list instead ?
If we don't want to touch the guc api, I am ok with using an array as well.
Best Regards,
Hou zj