Re: Doesn't pgstat_report_wal() handle the argument "force" incorrectly - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Doesn't pgstat_report_wal() handle the argument "force" incorrectly
Date
Msg-id ZREc8dGx2EBlJx4x@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Doesn't pgstat_report_wal() handle the argument "force" incorrectly  (Ryoga Yoshida <bt23yoshidar@oss.nttdata.com>)
Responses Re: Doesn't pgstat_report_wal() handle the argument "force" incorrectly
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 02:16:22PM +0900, Ryoga Yoshida wrote:
> On 2023-09-25 12:47, Michael Paquier wrote:
> in attached file
>> +    /* like in pgstat.c, don't wait for lock acquisition when !force */
>
> Isn't it the case with force=true and !force that it doesn't wait for the
> lock acquisition.  In fact, force may be false.

We would not wait on the lock if force=false, which would do
nowait=true.  And !force reads the same to me as force=false.

Anyway, I am OK to remove this part.  That seems to confuse you, so
you may not be the only one who would read this comment.

Another idea would be to do like in pgstat.c by adding the following
line, then use "nowait" to call each sub-function:
nowait = !force;
pgstat_flush_wal(nowait);
pgstat_flush_io(nowait);
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)"
Date:
Subject: RE: pg_upgrade and logical replication
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: [PoC] pg_upgrade: allow to upgrade publisher node