From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Cc: jgdr@dalibo.com
Cc: andres@anarazel.de
Cc: michael@paquier.xyz
Cc: sawada.mshk@gmail.com
Cc: peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Cc: thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com
Cc: sk@zsrv.org
Cc: michael.paquier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 16:58:00 -0300
Message-ID: <20190917195800.GA16694@alvherre.pgsql> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190731.165616.261402513.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Hello
I have a couple of API-level reservation about this patch series.
Firstly, "behind" when used as a noun refers to buttocks. Therefore,
the ReplicationSlotsEnumerateBehinds function name seems funny (I think
when used as a preposition you wouldn't put it in plural). I don't
suggest a substitute name, because the API itself doesn't convince me; I
think it would be sufficient to have it return a single slot name,
perhaps the one that is behind the most ... or maybe the one that is
behind the least? This simplifies a lot of code (in particular you do
away with the bunch of statics, right?), and I don't think the warning
messages loses anything, because for details the user should really look
into the monitoring view anyway.
I didn't like GetLsnAvailability() returning a string either. It seems
more reasonable to me to define a enum with possible return states, and
have the enum value be expanded to some string in
pg_get_replication_slots().
In the same function, I think that setting restBytes to -1 when
"useless" is bad style. I would just leave that variable alone when the
returned status is not one that receives the number of bytes. So the
caller is only entitled to read the value if the returned enum value is
such-and-such ("keeping" and "streaming" I think).
I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the API change to GetOldestKeepSegment
in 0002. Can't its caller do the math itself instead?
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, horikyota.ntt@gmail.com, jgdr@dalibo.com, andres@anarazel.de, michael@paquier.xyz, sawada.mshk@gmail.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com, sk@zsrv.org, michael.paquier@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots
In-Reply-To: <20190917195800.GA16694@alvherre.pgsql>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox