Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hamid Akhtar
Subject Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2
Date
Msg-id 159112309889.12248.14167097536759295283.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>)
Responses Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world:  tested, passed
Implements feature:       not tested
Spec compliant:           not tested
Documentation:            not tested

I've applied the v2 patch on the master branch. There some hunks, but the patch got applied. So, I ran make
installcheck-worldand everything looks fine to me with this patch. Though, I do have a few suggestions in general:
 

(1) I see two functions being used (a) CheckPromoteSignal and (b) IsPromoteSignaled in the code. Should these be
combinedinto a single function and perhaps check for "promote_signaled" and the "PROMOTE_SIGNAL_FILE". Not sure if
doingthis will break "sigusr1_handler" in postmaster.c though.
 

(2) CheckPromoteSignal is checking for "PROMOTE_SIGNAL_FILE" file. So, perhaps, rather than calling stat on
"PROMOTE_SIGNAL_FILE"in if statements, I would suggest to use CheckPromoteSignal function instead as it does nothing
butstat on "PROMOTE_SIGNAL_FILE" (after applying your patch). 

The new status of this patch is: Waiting on Author

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: Default gucs for EXPLAIN
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: OpenSSL 3.0.0 compatibility