Re: Basebackups reported as idle - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: Basebackups reported as idle
Date
Msg-id CABUevEw7gjVopM+=oSbJTRkaXYfD_8+7qt1qKnoRhaO-+e9m1g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Basebackups reported as idle  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Basebackups reported as idle  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 02:46:15PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I think that the call to pgstat_report_activity in WalSndLoop() should
>> be kept as well. There is a small gap between the moment the process
>> is started and the first replication command is run.
>>
>
> Eh. But WalSndLoop() is called *after* exec_replication_command(), isn't
> it? exec_replication_command() is called from PostgresMain(), and then
> calls WalSndLoop().
>
> So I agree there is a small gap, but actually moving it to
> exec_replication_command() makes that gap smaller than it was before, no?

My turn to read things wrong then, thinking that WalSndLoop() was the
main routine used for starting the WAL sender process. You are right removing
the call there is adapted.

Could you update the patch?

I thought I had, but I can see now that email was a figment of my imagination :)

PFA an actual patch.
 
--
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Konstantin Knizhnik
Date:
Subject: Re: AS OF queries
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: AS OF queries