On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > 2.
>> >> > pg_stat_get_wal_senders()
>> >> > {
>> >> > ..
>> >> > /*
>> >> > ! * Allocate and update the config data of synchronous replication,
>> >> > ! * and then get the currently active synchronous standbys.
>> >> > */
>> >> > + SyncRepUpdateConfig();
>> >> > LWLockAcquire(SyncRepLock, LW_SHARED);
>> >> > ! sync_standbys = SyncRepGetSyncStandbys();
>> >> > LWLockRelease(SyncRepLock);
>> >> > ..
>> >> > }
>> >> >
>> >> > Why is it important to update the config with patch? Earlier also
>> >> > any
>> >> > update to config between calls wouldn't have been visible.
>> >>
>> >> Because a backend has no chance to call SyncRepUpdateConfig() and
>> >> parse the latest value of s_s_names if SyncRepUpdateConfig() is not
>> >> called here. This means that pg_stat_replication may return the
>> >> information
>> >> based on the old value of s_s_names.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Thats right, but without this patch also won't pg_stat_replication can
>> > show
>> > old information? If no, why so?
>>
>> Without the patch, when s_s_names is changed and SIGHUP is sent,
>> a backend calls ProcessConfigFile(), parse the configuration file and
>> set the global variable SyncRepStandbyNames to the latest value of
>> s_s_names. When pg_stat_replication is accessed, a backend calculates
>> which standby is synchronous based on that latest value in
>> SyncRepStandbyNames,
>> and then displays the information of sync replication.
>>
>> With the patch, basically the same steps are executed when s_s_names is
>> changed. But the difference is that, with the patch, SyncRepUpdateConfig()
>> must be called after ProcessConfigFile() is called before the calculation
>> of
>> sync standbys. So I just added the call of SyncRepUpdateConfig() to
>> pg_stat_get_wal_senders().
>>
>
> Then why to call it just in pg_stat_get_wal_senders(), isn't it better if we
> call it always after ProcessConfigFile() (after setting SyncRepStandbyNames)
>
>> BTW, we can move SyncRepUpdateConfig() just after ProcessConfigFile()
>> from pg_stat_get_wal_senders() and every backends always parse the value
>> of s_s_names when the setting is changed.
>>
>
> That sounds appropriate, but not sure what is exact place to call it.
Maybe just after the following ProcessConfigFile().
-----------------------------------------
/*
* (6) check for any other interesting events that happened while we
* slept.
*/
if (got_SIGHUP)
{
got_SIGHUP = false;
ProcessConfigFile(PGC_SIGHUP);
}
-----------------------------------------
If we do the move, we also need to either (1) make postmaster call
SyncRepUpdateConfig() and pass the parsed result to any forked backends
via a file like write_nondefault_variables() does for EXEC_BACKEND
environment, or (2) make a backend call SyncRepUpdateConfig() during
its initialization phase so that the first call of pg_stat_replication
can use the parsed result. (1) seems complicated and overkill.
(2) may add very small overhead into the fork of a backend. It would
be almost negligible, though. So which logic should we adopt?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
