On 2020-Jan-22, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 06:03:18PM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> > PS: also, I surprised why it's ok for wal_receiver_create_temp_slot
> > to be PGC_SIGHUP and ignore change of this setting until walreceiver
> > will reconnect by unrelated reason. I means walreceiver does nothing
> > special on SIGHUP. In common case change of
> > wal_receiver_create_temp_slot setting will have effect only during
> > restart of walreceiver process. And therefore we will switch to
> > archive recovery. But such design was strongly rejected for my patch
> > year ago.
>
> [ Looks at 3297308... ]
> Yeah, you are right. I was not paying much attention but something
> does not stick here. My understanding is that we should have the WAL
> receiver receive the value it needs to use from the startup process
> (aka via RequestXLogStreaming from xlog.c), and that we ought to make
> this new parameter PGC_POSTMASTER instead of PGC_SIGHUP. HEAD is
> inconsistent here.
I'm CCing Peter as committer of 329730827848.
What are the downsides of changing wal_receiver_create_temp_slot to
PGC_POSTMASTER? It seems pretty nasty to requires a full server
restart. Maybe we can signal all walreceivers at that point so that
they restart with the correct setting? That's much less problematic, I
would think.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
