Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amul Sul
Subject Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY
Date
Msg-id CAAJ_b95jbu27ykXTmtLU3kSpy50A1HogjUj-45Q1+fv6tjvMow@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [Patch] ALTER SYSTEM READ ONLY  (Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:45 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Thanks Bharath for your review.

> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 11:02 AM Amul Sul <sulamul@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Attached is the rebase version for the latest master head(commit # 9f6f1f9b8e6).
>
> Some minor comments on 0001:
> Isn't it "might not be running"?
> +                 errdetail("Checkpointer might not running."),
>

Ok, fixed in the attached version.

> Isn't it  "Try again after sometime"?
> +                         errhint("Try after sometime again.")));
>

Ok, done.

> Can we have ereport(DEBUG1 just to be consistent(although it doesn't
> make any difference from elog(DEBUG1) with the new log messages
> introduced in the patch?
> +    elog(DEBUG1, "waiting for backends to adopt requested WAL
> prohibit state change");
>

I think it's fine; many existing places have used elog(DEBUG1, ....) too.

Regards,
Amul

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: Flaky vacuum truncate test in reloptions.sql
Next
From: torikoshia
Date:
Subject: Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process