On 2020-Jan-22, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 06:03:18PM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote: > > PS: also, I surprised why it's ok for wal_receiver_create_temp_slot > > to be PGC_SIGHUP and ignore change of this setting until walreceiver > > will reconnect by unrelated reason. I means walreceiver does nothing > > special on SIGHUP. In common case change of > > wal_receiver_create_temp_slot setting will have effect only during > > restart of walreceiver process. And therefore we will switch to > > archive recovery. But such design was strongly rejected for my patch > > year ago. > > [ Looks at 3297308... ] > Yeah, you are right. I was not paying much attention but something > does not stick here. My understanding is that we should have the WAL > receiver receive the value it needs to use from the startup process > (aka via RequestXLogStreaming from xlog.c), and that we ought to make > this new parameter PGC_POSTMASTER instead of PGC_SIGHUP. HEAD is > inconsistent here.
I'm CCing Peter as committer of 329730827848. What are the downsides of changing wal_receiver_create_temp_slot to PGC_POSTMASTER? It seems pretty nasty to requires a full server restart. Maybe we can signal all walreceivers at that point so that they restart with the correct setting? That's much less problematic, I would think. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
