On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:08:19PM +0100, Fabien COELHO wrote: > This refactoring patch is ok for me: applies, compiles, check is ok. > However, Am I right in thinking that the change should propagate to other > tools which manipulate the control file, eg pg_resetwal, postmaster… So that > there would be only one shared API to update the control file?
Yes, that would be nice, for now I have focused. For pg_resetwal yes we could do it easily. Would you like to send a patch? > I'm wondering whether there should be something done so that the > inter-release documentation navigation works? Should the section keep the > former name? Is it managed by hand somewhere else? Maybe it would require to > keep the refsect1 id, or to duplicate it, not sure. When it came to the renaming of pg_receivexlog to pg_receivewal, we did not actually do anything in the core code, and let the magic happen on pgsql-www. I have also pinged pgsql-packagers about the renaming and it is not really an issue on their side. So I have committed the renaming to pg_checksums as well. So now remains only the new options. > In "doc/src/sgml/ref/allfiles.sgml" there seems to be a habit to align on > the SYSTEM keyword, which is not fellowed by the patch. Sure. I sent an updated patch to actually fix that, and also address a couple of other side things I noticed on the way like the top refentry in the docs or the header format at the top of pg_checksums.c as we are on tweaking the area. > This seem contradictory to me: you want to disable checksum, and they are > already disabled, so nothing is needed. How does that qualifies as a > "failed" operation? If the operation is automated, then a proper reaction can be done if multiple attempts are done. Of course, I am fine to tune things one way or the other depending on the opinion of the crowd here. From the opinions gathered, I can see that (Michael * 2) prefer failing with exit(1), while (Fabien * 1) would like to just do exit(0). > Further review will come later. Thanks, Fabien! > Indeed. I do not immediately see the use case where no syncing would be a > good idea. I can see why it would be a bad idea. So I'm not sure of the > concept. To leverage the buildfarm effort I think this one is worth it. Or we finish to fsync the data folder a couple of times, which would make the small-ish buildfarm machines suffer more than they need. I am going to send a rebased patch set of the remaining things at the top of the discussion as well. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
