Thread: Walsender doesn't process options passed in the startup packet
Hi, I found walsender didn't process options (e.g., application_name in primary_conninfo) passed in the startup packet. The cause is that walsender doesn't execute process_postgres_switches() and SetConfigOption() in InitPostgres(). The attached patch fixes this bug. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment
On 10/09/10 13:17, Fujii Masao wrote: > Hi, > > I found walsender didn't process options (e.g., application_name > in primary_conninfo) passed in the startup packet. The cause is > that walsender doesn't execute process_postgres_switches() and > SetConfigOption() in InitPostgres(). > > The attached patch fixes this bug. Hmm, should walsender call InitializeClientEncoding too? It affects error messages. And what about per-user settings in pg_db_role_setting? -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> I found walsender didn't process options (e.g., application_name >> in primary_conninfo) passed in the startup packet. The cause is >> that walsender doesn't execute process_postgres_switches() and >> SetConfigOption() in InitPostgres(). >> >> The attached patch fixes this bug. > > Hmm, should walsender call InitializeClientEncoding too? It affects error > messages. And what about per-user settings in pg_db_role_setting? Yes, we should do both. SetDatabasePath() and RelationCacheInitializePhase3() need to be called before accessing to pg_db_role_setting. And we should apply PostAuthDelay. I attached the updated patch. BTW, this issue seems to derive from the following commit. http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-04/msg00175.php Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: > BTW, this issue seems to derive from the following commit. > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-04/msg00175.php > it was previously using an untenable assumption that template1 would > always be available to connect to The above commit message shows that the updated patch is untenable too since it assumes the existence of the template1. Is there way to access to pg_db_role_setting without connecting to the specific database? If not, it's difficult for walsender to process the per-user settings since it's tied to no database. Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:56 PM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote: >> BTW, this issue seems to derive from the following commit. >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-04/msg00175.php >> it was previously using an untenable assumption that template1 would >> always be available to connect to > The above commit message shows that the updated patch is untenable too > since it assumes the existence of the template1. > Is there way to access to pg_db_role_setting without connecting to the > specific database? If not, it's difficult for walsender to process the > per-user settings since it's tied to no database. Huh? walsender has no business applying any per-user or per-database settings. regards, tom lane
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Huh? walsender has no business applying any per-user or per-database > settings. Okay. I got rid of the access to pg_db_role_setting from the patch. I attached the updated version, which makes walsender process the options passed in the startup packet, apply PostAuthDelay and initialize client encoding. OTOH, I can believe that some people would create a dedicated role for replication and configure the parameters for replication on the role. What about leaving the capability to apply per-role settings as a TODO item? Regards, -- Fujii Masao NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
Attachment
On 13/09/10 08:10, Fujii Masao wrote: > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Huh? walsender has no business applying any per-user or per-database >> settings. > > Okay. I got rid of the access to pg_db_role_setting from the patch. > I attached the updated version, which makes walsender process the > options passed in the startup packet, apply PostAuthDelay and initialize > client encoding. > > OTOH, I can believe that some people would create a dedicated role for > replication and configure the parameters for replication on the role. Right, per-database settings clearly make no sense, but per-role settings do. There isn't very many settings that make sense for walsender, but client_encoding is one example. I agree it's not terribly useful, but would be nice for the sake of completeness. > What about leaving the capability to apply per-role settings as a TODO > item? Yeah, seems best at this point. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On 13/09/10 08:10, Fujii Masao wrote: > Okay. I got rid of the access to pg_db_role_setting from the patch. > I attached the updated version, which makes walsender process the > options passed in the startup packet, apply PostAuthDelay and initialize > client encoding. Thanks, committed. I moved the check for "MyProcPort == NULL" case to the callers of process_startup_packet(), it seems more logical to me. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com