On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 04:06:03PM -0500, Tristan Partin wrote:
> Saw your patch for the first time today. Looks like your patch is messed up?
> You seem to have more of the diff at the bottom which seems to add a test.
> Want to send a v2 with a properly formatted patch?
FWIW, complicating more XLogRecoveryCtlData sends me shivers, these
days, because we have already a lot of recovery state to track within
it.
More seriously, I'm not much a fan of introducing more branches at the
bottom of readRecoverySignalFile() for the boolean flags tracking if
standby and/or archive recovery are triggered, even if these are
simple there are already too many of them. Perhaps we should begin
tracking all that as a set of bitmasks, then plug in the tracked state
in shmem for consumption in some SQL function.
--
Michael
