Re: [HACKERS] recovery_min_apply_delay with a negative value
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
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
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
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
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
