Re: [HACKERS] recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value

2015-01-05 Thread Petr Jelinek

On 05/01/15 20:44, Robert Haas wrote:

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:

Of course, if recovery_min_apply_delay were a proper GUC, we'd just
configure it with a minimum value of zero and be done :-(


Amen.  We should *really* convert all of the recovery.conf parameters
to be GUCs.



Well, there is an ongoing effort on that and I think the patch is very 
close to the state where committer should take a look IMHO, I have only 
couple of gripes with it now and one of them needs opinions of others 
anyway.


--
 Petr Jelinek  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:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value

2015-01-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
 Of course, if recovery_min_apply_delay were a proper GUC, we'd just
 configure it with a minimum value of zero and be done :-(

Amen.  We should *really* convert all of the recovery.conf parameters
to be GUCs.

-- 
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


Re: [HACKERS] recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value

2015-01-03 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Michael Paquier
 michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi all,

 While reviewing another patch, I have noticed that
 recovery_min_apply_delay can have a negative value. And the funny part is
 that we actually attempt to apply a delay even in this case, per se this
 condition recoveryApplyDelay@xlog.c:
 /* nothing to do if no delay configured */
 if (recovery_min_apply_delay == 0)
 return false;
 Shouldn't we simply leave if recovery_min_apply_delay is lower 0, and not
 only equal to 0?


 Seems reasonable.
Trivial patch for master and REL9_4_STABLE attached as long as I don't
forget it..
-- 
Michael
diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
index e54..5cc7e47 100644
--- a/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
+++ b/src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c
@@ -5430,7 +5430,7 @@ recoveryApplyDelay(XLogReaderState *record)
 	int			microsecs;
 
 	/* nothing to do if no delay configured */
-	if (recovery_min_apply_delay == 0)
+	if (recovery_min_apply_delay = 0)
 		return false;
 
 	/*

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


Re: [HACKERS] recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value

2015-01-03 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
 On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:30 AM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
 fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
 Shouldn't we simply leave if recovery_min_apply_delay is lower 0, and not
 only equal to 0?

 Trivial patch for master and REL9_4_STABLE attached as long as I don't
 forget it..

It was originally intentional that the apply delay could be negative, cf

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52a59d10.7020...@lab.ntt.co.jp

The argument for that was completely bogus, as noted further downthread:

http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131212110505.ga14...@alap2.anarazel.de

but it looks like there are still residues of it in the committed patch;
both this and the totally meaningless reference to timezone differential
in the parameter's documentation.

Of course, if recovery_min_apply_delay were a proper GUC, we'd just
configure it with a minimum value of zero and be done :-(

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


Re: [HACKERS] recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value

2014-12-29 Thread Fabrízio de Royes Mello
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hi all,

 While reviewing another patch, I have noticed that
recovery_min_apply_delay can have a negative value. And the funny part is
that we actually attempt to apply a delay even in this case, per se this
condition recoveryApplyDelay@xlog.c:
 /* nothing to do if no delay configured */
 if (recovery_min_apply_delay == 0)
 return false;
 Shouldn't we simply leave if recovery_min_apply_delay is lower 0, and not
only equal to 0?


Seems reasonable.

Regards,

--
Fabrízio de Royes Mello
Consultoria/Coaching PostgreSQL
 Timbira: http://www.timbira.com.br
 Blog: http://fabriziomello.github.io
 Linkedin: http://br.linkedin.com/in/fabriziomello
 Twitter: http://twitter.com/fabriziomello
 Github: http://github.com/fabriziomello


[HACKERS] recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value

2014-12-28 Thread Michael Paquier
Hi all,

While reviewing another patch, I have noticed that recovery_min_apply_delay
can have a negative value. And the funny part is that we actually attempt
to apply a delay even in this case, per se this condition
recoveryApplyDelay@xlog.c:
/* nothing to do if no delay configured */
if (recovery_min_apply_delay == 0)
return false;
Shouldn't we simply leave if recovery_min_apply_delay is lower 0, and not
only equal to 0?
Regards,
-- 
Michael