On 6 April 2016 at 15:17, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-04-06 14:30:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 6 April 2016 at 14:15, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > ...
> > Nice summary
> > Failover slots are optional. And they work on master.
> > While the other approach could also work, it will work later and still
> > require a slot on the master.
> > => I don't see why having Failover Slots in 9.6 would prevent us from
> > having something else later, if someone else writes it.
> > We don't need to add this to core. Each plugin can independently write is
> > own failover code. Works, but doesn't seem like the right approach for
> > source.
> > => I think we should add Failover Slots to 9.6.
> Simon, please don't take this personal; because of the other ongoing
Thanks for the review. Rational technical comments are exactly why we are
here and they are always welcome.
> For one I think this is architecturally the wrong choice.
But even leaving that fact aside, and
> considering this a temporary solution (we can't easily remove),
As I observed above, the alternate solution doesn't sound particularly good
either but the main point is that we wouldn't need to remove it, it can
coexist happily. I would add that I did think of the alternate solution
previously as well, this one seemed simpler, which is always key for me in
code aimed at robustness.
> there appears to have been very little code level review
That is potentially fixable. At this point I don't claim it is committable,
I only say it is important and the alternate solution is not significantly
better, therefore if the patch can be beaten into shape we should commit it.
I will spend some time on this and see if we have something viable. Which
will be posted here for discussion, as would have happened even before our
Thanks for the points below
(one early from Petr
> in , two by Oleksii mostly focusing on error messages  ). The
> whole patch was submitted late to the 9.6 cycle.
> Quickly skimming 0001 in  there appear to be a number of issues:
> * LWLockHeldByMe() is only for debugging, not functional differences
> * ReplicationSlotPersistentData is now in an xlog related header
> * The code and behaviour around name conflicts of slots seems pretty
> raw, and not discussed
> * Taking spinlocks dependant on InRecovery() seems like a seriously bad
> * I doubt that the archive based switches around StartupReplicationSlots
> do what they intend. Afaics that'll not work correctly for basebackups
> taken with -X, without recovery.conf
> That's from a ~5 minute skim, of one patch in the series.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services