Re: Switching XLog source from archive to streaming when primary available - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kyotaro Horiguchi
Subject Re: Switching XLog source from archive to streaming when primary available
Date
Msg-id 20220916.153629.1624554489607517175.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Switching XLog source from archive to streaming when primary available  (SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Switching XLog source from archive to streaming when primary available
List pgsql-hackers
At Fri, 16 Sep 2022 09:15:58 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote in 
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 1:52 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > At Thu, 15 Sep 2022 10:28:12 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > I'm attaching the v6 patch that's rebased on to the latest HEAD.
> > > Please consider this for review.
> >
> > Thaks for the new version!
> >
> > +#define StreamingReplRetryEnabled() \
> > +       (streaming_replication_retry_interval > 0 && \
> > +        StandbyMode && \
> > +        currentSource == XLOG_FROM_ARCHIVE)
> >
> > It seems to me a bit too complex..

In other words, it seems to me that the macro name doesn't manifest
the condition correctly.

> I don't think so, it just tells whether a standby is allowed to switch
> source to stream from archive.
> 
> > +                       /* Save the timestamp at which we're switching to archive. */
> > +                       if (StreamingReplRetryEnabled())
> > +                               switched_to_archive_at = GetCurrentTimestamp();
> >
> > Anyway we are going to open a file just after this so
> > GetCurrentTimestamp() cannot cause a perceptible degradation.
> > Coulnd't we do that unconditionally, to get rid of the macro?
> 
> Do we really need to do it unconditionally? I don't think so. And, we
> can't get rid of the macro, as we need to check for the current
> source, GUC and standby mode. When this feature is disabled, it
> mustn't execute any extra code IMO.

I don't think we don't particularly want to do that unconditionally.
I wanted just to get rid of the macro from the usage site.  Even if
the same condition is used elsewhere, I see it better to write out the
condition directly there..

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Refactor backup related code (was: Is it correct to say, "invalid data in file \"%s\"", BACKUP_LABEL_FILE in do_pg_backup_stop?)
Next
From: Richard Guo
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Simple code cleanup in tuplesort.c.