On 10.04.2025 05:25, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Confirmed. One thing where it would be possible to make things work
> is to introduce some persistency of the injection points, say these
> are flushed at shutdown. We could do that without touching at the
> backend code and only in the module injection_points, but perhaps this
> thread is not enough to justify this extra complexity.
Agree, it should be discussed in another thread.
On 10.04.2025 05:25, Michael Paquier wrote:
> What do you think?
Yes, patch for me looks ok, only one suggestion, I am not sure
but I am afraid we are loosing this.
if (WalSndCtl->sync_standbys_status & SYNC_STANDBY_INIT)
{
if ((WalSndCtl->sync_standbys_status &
SYNC_STANDBY_DEFINED) == 0 ||
lsn <= WalSndCtl->lsn[mode])
{
LWLockRelease(SyncRepLock);
return;
}
}
else if (!SyncStandbysDefined())
{
/*
* If we are here, the sync standby data has not been
initialized yet,
* so fall back to the best thing we can do: a check on
* SyncStandbysDefined() to see if the GUC is set or not.
*
* If the GUC has a value, we wait until the
checkpointer updates the
* status data because we cannot be sure yet if we
should wait or not.
* If the GUC has *no* value, we are sure that there is
no point to
* wait; this matters for example when initializing a
cluster, where
* we should never wait, and no sync standbys is the
default behavior.
*/
LWLockRelease(SyncRepLock);
return;
}
+ else if (lsn <= WalSndCtl->lsn[mode])
+ {
+ LWLockRelease(SyncRepLock);
+ return;
+ }
What do you think?
Best regards,
Maksim Melnikov
