On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:35:00 +0530
Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 8:18 AM Yugo NAGATA <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 07:51:22 +0530
> > Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 at 6:38 AM, Yugo NAGATA <nag...@sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 7 Feb 2021 19:27:02 +0530
> > > > Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 6:44 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> > > > > <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:14 AM Bharath Rupireddy
> > > > > > <bharath.rupireddyforpostg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > We can not do that, basically, under one lock we need to check
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > state and set it to pause. Because by the time you release the
> > > > lock
> > > > > > > > someone might set it to RECOVERY_NOT_PAUSED then you don't want
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > set
> > > > > > > > it to RECOVERY_PAUSED.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Got it. Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Dilip, I have one more question:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > + /* test for recovery pause, if user has requested the
> > > > > > pause */
> > > > > > + if (((volatile XLogCtlData *) XLogCtl)->recoveryPauseState
> > > > > > ==
> > > > > > + RECOVERY_PAUSE_REQUESTED)
> > > > > > + recoveryPausesHere(false);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + now = GetCurrentTimestamp();
> > > > > > +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do we need now = GetCurrentTimestamp(); here? Because, I see that
> > > > > > whenever the variable now is used within the for loop in
> > > > > > WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable, it's re-calculated anyways. It's being
> > > > > > used within case XLOG_FROM_STREAM:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Am I missing something?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, I don't see any reason for doing this, maybe it got copy pasted
> > > > > by mistake. Thanks for observing this.
> > > >
> > > > I also have a question:
> > > >
> > > > @@ -6270,14 +6291,14 @@ RecoveryRequiresIntParameter(const char
> > > > *param_name, int currValue, int minValue
> > > > currValue,
> > > > minValue)));
> > > >
> > > > - SetRecoveryPause(true);
> > > > + SetRecoveryPause(RECOVERY_PAUSED);
> > > >
> > > > ereport(LOG,
> > > > (errmsg("recovery has paused"),
> > > > errdetail("If recovery is
> > > > unpaused, the server will shut down."),
> > > > errhint("You can then restart
> > > > the
> > > > server after making the necessary configuration changes.")));
> > > >
> > > > - while (RecoveryIsPaused())
> > > > + while (GetRecoveryPauseState() !=
> > > > RECOVERY_NOT_PAUSED)
> > > > {
> > > > HandleStartupProcInterrupts();
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If a user call pg_wal_replay_pause while waiting in
> > > > RecoveryRequiresIntParameter,
> > > > the state become 'pause requested' and this never returns to 'paused'.
> > > > Should we check recoveryPauseState in this loop as in
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the right fix should be that the state should never go from
> > > ‘paused’ to ‘pause requested’ so I think pg_wal_replay_pause should take
> > > care of that.
> >
> > It makes sense to take care of this in pg_wal_replay_pause, but I wonder
> > it can not handle the case that a user resume and pause again while a sleep.
>
> Right, we will have to check and set in the loop. But we should not
> allow the state to go from paused to pause requested irrespective of
> this.
I agree with you.
--
Yugo NAGATA <nag...@sraoss.co.jp>
