On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 2:52 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2021/03/23 3:25, James Coleman wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 1:49 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2021/03/19 23:35, James Coleman wrote:
> >>> Here's an updated patch; I think I've gotten what Alvaro suggested.
> >>
> >> Thanks for updating the patch! But I was thinking that our consensus is
> >> something like the attached patch. Could you check this patch?
> >
> > As far as I can tell (I might be missing something) your v5 patch does
> > the same thing, albeit with different code organization. It did catch
> > though that I'd neglected to add the DETAIL line as separate from the
> > errmsg line.
> >
> > Is the attached (in the style of my v4, since I'm not following why we
> > need to move the standby determination logic into a new
> > CAC_NOCONSISTENT block) what you're thinking? Or is there something
> > else I'm missing?
>
> I just did that to avoid adding more CAC_state. But basically it's
> ok to check hot standby at either canAcceptConnections() or
> ProcessStartupPacket().
>
> case CAC_STARTUP:
> ereport(FATAL,
> (errcode(ERRCODE_CANNOT_CONNECT_NOW),
> - errmsg("the database system is starting up")));
> + errmsg("the database system is not accepting connections"),
> + errdetail("Consistent recovery state has not been yet reached.")));
>
> Do you want to report this message even in crash recovery? Since crash
> recovery is basically not so much related to "consistent recovery state",
> at least for me the original message seems more suitable for crash recovery.
>
> Also if we adopt this message, the server with hot_standby=off reports
> "Consistent recovery state has not been yet reached." in PM_STARTUP,
> but stops reporting this message at PM_RECOVERY even if the consistent
> recovery state has not been reached yet. Instead, it reports "Hot standby
> mode is disabled." at PM_RECOVERY. Isn't this transition of message confusing?
Are you saying we should only change the message for a single case:
the case where we'd otherwise allow connections but EnableHotStandby
is false? I believe that's what the original patch did, but then
Alvaro's proposal included changing additional messages.
James Coleman
