Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context forprimary_conninfo and primary_slot_name - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context forprimary_conninfo and primary_slot_name
Date
Msg-id 20190117005416.GA2036@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Making WAL receiver startup rely on GUC context forprimary_conninfo and primary_slot_name  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 11:02:48AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think you have some valid points here, but I also think that the
> patch as written doesn't really seem to have any user-visible
> benefits.  Sure, ready_to_display is a crock, but getting rid of it
> doesn't immediately help anybody.  And on the flip side your patch
> might have bugs, in which case we'll be worse off.  I'm not going to
> stand on my soapbox and say that committing this patch is a terrible
> idea, because as far as I can tell, it isn't.  But it feels like it
> might be a commit for the sake of making a commit, and I can't get too
> excited about that either.  Since the logic will have to be further
> revised anyway to make primary_conninfo PGC_SIGHUP, why not just wait
> until that's done and then commit all the changes together instead of
> guessing that this might make that easier?

You can say that about any patch which gets committed, even
refactoring patches have a risk of introducing bugs, and even subtle
ones understood only after release.

I was justifying the existence of this thread exactly for opposite
reasons.  After reviewing the other patch switch to reload the
parameters we could do more, and spawning a new thread to attract the
correct audience looked rather right (it still does):
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20181212043208.GI17695@paquier.xyz

And this refactoring seemed to be justified as part of a different
thread.  I don't mind dropping this patch and this thread and just go
back there, but that seems like taking steps backward, and what's
proposed here is a bit different than just making the parameters
reloadable.  Still the refactoring looks justified to me for
correctness with the parameter handling.

Anyway, based on the opinions gathered until now, I don't mind just
dropping this patch and move on to the other thread, though we will
likely finish with the same discussion as what's done here :)

A patch on which two committers are expressing concerns about is as
good as going to the waste bin.  That's of course fine by me.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Jamison, Kirk"
Date:
Subject: RE: reloption to prevent VACUUM from truncating empty pages at theend of relation
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] generated columns