On 19 March 2017 at 22:12, Petr Jelinek <petr.jeli...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> I am slightly worried about impact of the readTimeLineHistory() call but
> I think it should be called so little that it should not matter.

Pretty much my thinking too.

> That brings us to the big patch 0003.
> I still don't like the "New in 10.0" comments in documentation, for one
> it's 10, not 10.0 and mainly we don't generally write stuff like this to
> documentation, that's what release notes are for.

OK. Personally I think it's worthwhile for protocol docs, which are
more dev-focused. But I agree it's not consistent with the rest of the
docs, so removed.

(Frankly I wish we did this consistently throughout the Pg docs, too,
and it'd be much more user-friendly if we did, but that's just not
going to happen.)

> There is large amounts of whitespace mess (empty lines with only
> whitespace, spaces at the end of the lines), nothing horrible, but
> should be cleaned up.


> One thing I don't understand much is the wal_level change and turning
> off catalogXmin tracking. I don't really see anywhere that the
> catalogXmin would be reset in control file for example. There is TODO in
> UpdateOldestCatalogXmin() that seems related but tbh I don't follow
> what's happening there - comment says about not doing anything, but the
> code inside the if block are only Asserts.

UpdateOldestCatalogXmin(...) with force=true forces a
XactLogCatalogXminUpdate(...) call to write the new
procArray->replication_slot_catalog_xmin .

We call it with force=true from XLogReportParameters(...) when
wal_level has been lowered; see XLogReportParameters. This will write
out a xl_xact_catalog_xmin_advance with
procArray->replication_slot_catalog_xmin's value then update
ShmemVariableCache->oldestCatalogXmin in shmem.
ShmemVariableCache->oldestCatalogXmin will get written out in the next
checkpoint, which gets incorporated in the control file.

There is a problem though - StartupReplicationSlots() and
RestoreSlotFromDisk() don't care if catalog_xmin is set on a slot but
wal_level is < logical and will happily restore a logical slot, or a
physical slot with a catalog_xmin. So we can't actually assume that
procArray->replication_slot_catalog_xmin will be 0 if we're not
writing new logical WAL. This isn't a big deal, it just means we can't
short-circuit UpdateOldestCatalogXmin() calls if
!XLogLogicalInfoActive(). It also means the XLogReportParameters()
stuff can be removed since we don't care about wal_level for tracking

Fixed in updated patch.

I'm now reading over Andres's review.

 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to