Re: Basebackups reported as idle - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Basebackups reported as idle
Date
Msg-id 20171222013137.GA11060@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Basebackups reported as idle  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Responses Re: Basebackups reported as idle
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:46:15PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I think that the call to pgstat_report_activity in WalSndLoop() should
>> be kept as well. There is a small gap between the moment the process
>> is started and the first replication command is run.
>>
>
> Eh. But WalSndLoop() is called *after* exec_replication_command(), isn't
> it? exec_replication_command() is called from PostgresMain(), and then
> calls WalSndLoop().
>
> So I agree there is a small gap, but actually moving it to
> exec_replication_command() makes that gap smaller than it was before, no?

My turn to read things wrong then, thinking that WalSndLoop() was the
main routine used for starting the WAL sender process. You are right removing
the call there is adapted.

Could you update the patch?
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Runtime Partition Pruning
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] path toward faster partition pruning