On 2019-01-11 09:50:49 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 04:41:47PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > I still think this whole direction of accessing the GUC in walreceiver > > is a bad idea and shouldn't be pursued further. There's definite > > potential for startup process and WAL receiver having different states > > of GUCs, the code doesn't get meaningfully simpler, the GUC value checks > > in walreceiver make for horrible reporting up the chain. > > Did you notice the set of messages from upthread? The code *gets* > simpler by removing ready_to_display and the need to manipulate the > non-clobbered connection string sent directly from the startup > process.
It's a minor simplification for code that's existed for quite a while. Not worth it.
