On 3 January 2016 at 13:26, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 25, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Thomas Munro
>>> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Thomas Munro
>>>> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>>> If you got rid of SyncRepGetSyncStandbysOnePriority as suggested
>>>>> above, then this function could be renamed to SyncRepGetSyncStandbys.
>>>>> I think it would be a tiny bit nicer if it also took a Size n argument
>>>>> along with the output buffer pointer.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I could not get your point. SyncRepGetSyncStandbysPriority()
>>> function uses synchronous_standby_num which is global variable.
>>> But you mean that the number of synchronous standbys is given as
>>> function argument?
>>
>> Yeah, I was thinking of it as the output buffer size which I would be
>> inclined to make more explicit (I am still coming to terms with the
>> use of global variables in Postgres) but it doesn't matter, please
>> disregard that suggestion.
>>
>>>>> As for the body of that function (which I won't paste here), it
>>>>> contains an algorithm to find the top K elements in an array of N
>>>>> elements. It does that with a linear search through the top K seen so
>>>>> far for each value in the input array, so its worst case is O(KN)
>>>>> comparisons. Some of the sorting gurus on this list might have
>>>>> something to say about that but my take is that it seems fine for the
>>>>> tiny values of K and N that we're dealing with here, and it's nice
>>>>> that it doesn't need any space other than the output buffer, unlike
>>>>> some other top-K algorithms which would win for larger inputs.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it's improvement point.
>>> But I'm assumed that the number of synchronous replication is not
>>> large, so I use this algorithm as first version.
>>> And I think that its worst case is O(K(N-K)). Am I missing something?
>>
>> You're right, I was dropping that detail, in the tradition of the
>> hand-wavy school of big-O notation. (I suppose you could skip the
>> inner loop when the priority is lower than the current lowest
>> priority, giving a O(N) best case when the walsenders are perfectly
>> ordered by coincidence. Probably a bad idea or just not worth
>> worrying about.)
>
> Thank you for reviewing the patch.
> Yeah, I added the logic that skip the inner loop.
>
>>
>>> Attached latest version patch.
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Obtain currently synced LSN location: write and flush, using priority
>> - * In 9.1 we support only a single synchronous standby, chosen from a
>> - * priority list of synchronous_standby_names. Before it can become the
>> + * In 9.6 we support multiple synchronous standby, chosen from a priority
>>
>> s/standby/standbys/
>>
>> + * list of synchronous_standby_names. Before it can become the
>>
>> s/Before it can become the/Before any standby can become a/
>>
>> * synchronous standby it must have caught up with the primary; that may
>> * take some time. Once caught up, the current highest priority standby
>>
>> s/standby/standbys/
>>
>> * will release waiters from the queue.
>>
>> +bool
>> +SyncRepGetSyncLsnsPriority(XLogRecPtr *write_pos, XLogRecPtr *flush_pos)
>> +{
>> + int sync_standbys[synchronous_standby_num];
>>
>> I think this should be sync_standbys[SYNC_REP_MAX_SYNC_STANDBY_NUM].
>> (Variable sized arrays are a feature of C99 and PostgreSQL is written
>> in C89.)
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Populate a caller-supplied array which much have enough space for
>> + * synchronous_standby_num. Returns position of standbys currently
>> + * considered as synchronous, and its length.
>> + */
>> +int
>> +SyncRepGetSyncStandbys(int *sync_standbys)
>>
>> s/much/must/ (my bad, in previous email).
>>
>> + ereport(ERROR,
>> + (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
>> + errmsg("The number of synchronous standbys must be smaller than the
>> number of listed : %d",
>> + synchronous_standby_num)));
>>
>> How about "the number of synchronous standbys exceeds the length of
>> the standby list: %d"? Error messages usually start with lower case,
>> ':' is not usually preceded by a space.
>>
>> + ereport(ERROR,
>> + (errcode(ERRCODE_INVALID_PARAMETER_VALUE),
>> + errmsg("The number of synchronous standbys must be between 1 and %d : %d",
>>
>> s/The/the/, s/ : /: /
>
> Fixed you mentioned.
>
> Attached latest v5 patch.
> Please review it.
synchronous_standby_num doesn't appear to be a valid GUC name:
LOG: unrecognized configuration parameter "synchronous_standby_num"
in file "/home/thom/Development/test/primary/postgresql.conf" line 244
All I did was uncomment it and set it to a value.
Thom
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
