On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:58, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 12:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> Just to be clear, you're objecting to the *name* of the state, right,
>> not how/where it's set?
>
> Yes
>
>> In particular, how the catchup/streaming
>> things are set?
>
> You've set it in the right places.
>
> I would personally constrain the state transitions, so that we can't
> ever make illegal changes, such as CATCHUP -> BACKUP.
Well, once we enter the walsender loop we can never get out of it, so
it simply cannot happen...
> I would also check the state locally before grabbing the spinlock, as is
> typical in other xlog code. Continually resetting shared state to
> exactly what it is already seems strange, to me. If we make the rule
> that the state can only be changed by the WALSender itself, it won't
> need to grab spinlock. If you don't like that, a local variable works.
Hmm. I don't see why anybody other than the walsender should change
it, so yeah. You mean I can just drop the spinlock calls completely,
and then do an
if (walsnd->state != state) walsnd->state = state;
? Do I need to keep the volatile pointer, or should I drop that as well?
> Also, mixing upper camel case and uppercase for the STATe NamES looKS
> weIRD. Uppercase makes them look more clearly like enum/states as used
> elsewhere in similar code.
Yeah, I'll change that.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
