Thread: [HACKERS] What's with all the fflush(stderr) calls in pg_standby.c?
This looks like cargo-cult programming to me. stderr is almost
always line-buffered, making these fflush'es pointless. If it's
not line-buffered, that's probably because it's going to a
noninteractive destination for which this wouldn't matter.
Moreover, none of our other programs do this.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > This looks like cargo-cult programming to me. stderr is almost > always line-buffered, making these fflush'es pointless. If it's > not line-buffered, that's probably because it's going to a > noninteractive destination for which this wouldn't matter. > Moreover, none of our other programs do this. On a related note, the idea of removing pg_standby altogether has been proposed a few times. Apparently there are a few things that it still does better than standby_mode, but nobody seems in a hurry to do anything about that. Still, I'd be against spending a lot of time trying to improve a tool that has mostly outlived its usefulness - we ought to be trying to enhance the in-core facilities instead. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On a related note, the idea of removing pg_standby altogether has been > proposed a few times. Apparently there are a few things that it still > does better than standby_mode, but nobody seems in a hurry to do > anything about that. Still, I'd be against spending a lot of time > trying to improve a tool that has mostly outlived its usefulness - we > ought to be trying to enhance the in-core facilities instead. +1. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 2017-09-25 10:01:35 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > > On a related note, the idea of removing pg_standby altogether has been > > proposed a few times. Including recently by me http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20170913064824.rqflkadxwpboabgw%40alap3.anarazel.de > > Apparently there are a few things that it still > > does better than standby_mode, but nobody seems in a hurry to do > > anything about that. Still, I'd be against spending a lot of time > > trying to improve a tool that has mostly outlived its usefulness - we > > ought to be trying to enhance the in-core facilities instead. > > +1. It's also pretty crummy code that has no test coverage. I'd just remove it. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers