[pgpool-hackers: 3821] Re: Proposal: language cleanup in Pgpool-II

Thu Sep 17 07:08:35 JST 2020

Hi Umar,

Thank you for the new version of patches.  However when I git apply
each patches against current master, some of them do not apply. Can
you please rebase them?

../language_fixes/v2-005-master-slave-to-native-replication.diff
error: patch failed: doc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml:187
error: doc/src/sgml/runtime.sgml: patch does not apply
../language_fixes/v2-006-masterslave-to-mainreplica.diff
error: patch failed: doc/src/sgml/loadbalance.sgml:27
error: doc/src/sgml/loadbalance.sgml: patch does not apply
error: patch failed: src/protocol/pool_process_query.c:3281
error: src/protocol/pool_process_query.c: patch does not apply
error: patch failed: src/protocol/pool_proto_modules.c:228
error: src/protocol/pool_proto_modules.c: patch does not apply
../language_fixes/v2-007-follow_master-and-recovery-and-misc.diff
error: patch failed: doc.ja/src/sgml/failover.sgml:621
error: doc.ja/src/sgml/failover.sgml: patch does not apply
error: patch failed: doc/src/sgml/failover.sgml:475
error: doc/src/sgml/failover.sgml: patch does not apply
error: patch failed: doc/src/sgml/restrictions.sgml:127
error: doc/src/sgml/restrictions.sgml: patch does not apply
error: patch failed: src/main/pgpool_main.c:1596
error: src/main/pgpool_main.c: patch does not apply
error: patch failed: src/protocol/pool_process_query.c:83
error: src/protocol/pool_process_query.c: patch does not apply

> Hi Team,
> Please find second version patches attached with updates suggested. Feel
> free to comment if more improvements are needed.
> 
> Regards
> Umar Hayat
> 
> 
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:42 PM Umar Hayat <m.umarkiani at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 1:28 PM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at sraoss.co.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Umar,
>>>
>>> >> Replacing to red and green is a little bit confusing to me. What
>>> >> about denylist/allowlist? It's suggested by Linux.
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes, I read few Linux related articles and few other sources
>>> > too. denylist/allowlist is used for decision where we either allow or
>>> deny.
>>> > In our case, based on mutability factor we decide whether we should send
>>> > query to primary or standby. So in-fact we are not blocking queries.
>>>
>>> That makes sense.
>>>
>>> > IMO we can use
>>> > 1. deny/allow ( e.g allow_function_list, deny_function_list,
>>> > allow_query_pattern, allow_memqcache_table_list,
>>> deny_memqcache_table_list)
>>> > ?
>>> > 2. or descriptive term like mutable/immutable & safe/unsafe based on
>>> pgpool
>>> > usage ( e.g. mutable_function_list, immutable_function_list,
>>> > safe_query_pattern, safe_memqcache_table_list,
>>> unsafe_memqcache_table_list
>>> > ) ?
>>>
>>> I like 2. What about:
>>>
>>> black/white_function_list -> write_function_list, read_only_function_list
>>> black_query_pattern -> primay_routing_query_pattern
>>> black/white_memqcache_table_list -> cache_unsafe/cache_safe_table_list
>>>
>>> Sounds good. I will send updated the patch with these terms.
>>
>>> >> v1-002-Watchdog-master-leader
>>> >> >    Replace master to 'leader' for 'master' watchdog nodes
>>> >>
>>> >> Sounds reasonable choice to me.
>>> >>
>>> >> > v1-003-ALWAYS_MASTER-to-ALWAYS_PRIMARY
>>> >> >   Replace backend_flagx option 'ALWAYS_MASTER' with 'ALWAYS_PRIMARY'
>>> >>
>>> >> Sounds good to me.
>>> >>
>>> >> > v1-004-relcache_query_target--master-to-primary
>>> >> >    Replace relcache_query_target option 'master' to 'primary'
>>> >>
>>> >> Sounds good to me.
>>> >>
>>> >> > v1-005-master-slave-to-primarystandby
>>> >> >    Replace Master/Slave with Primary/Secondary
>>> >>
>>> >> I think we could replace "Master/Slave mode" to "Native replication
>>> >> mode".
>>> >>
>>> >> Using "Primary" as the replacemnet for "Master" sounds is confusing as
>>> >> there's "Primary" in the streaming replication mode.
>>> >>
>>> >> I will use Native Replication  mode in next patch.
>>> >
>>> >> > v1-006-masterslave-to-mainreplica
>>> >> >    Replace Master Node with Main node ( node id with 0 or youngest
>>> live )
>>> >> >    Couldn't translate with primary/leader as they were already used
>>> in
>>> >> > different context
>>> >>
>>> >> Sounds good to me.
>>> >>
>>> >> > v1-007-follow_master-and-recovery-and-misc
>>> >> >    Replace follow_master with follow_primary with parameters replaced
>>> >> with
>>> >> > new/old master with new/old main.
>>> >> >    Replace some remaining occurrences of master with
>>> primary/main/leader
>>> >>
>>> >> Sounds good to me.
>>> >>
>>> >> > In the above patches I didn't change older releases notes ( except
>>> for
>>> >> some
>>> >> > links so they don't break and point to new terminology), history,
>>> TODO
>>> >> and
>>> >> > Japanese Doc string.
>>> >>
>>> >> Sounds good to me. (I will take care of Japanese Doc string).
>>> >>
>>> >> > Postmaster ( It's used around 150 times ) and very few other
>>> occurrences
>>> >> of
>>> >> > 'master' are still present.
>>> >>
>>> >> No objection from me.
>>> >>
>>> >> > There are alot of inter-dependent terminologies and so I might have
>>> >> missed
>>> >> > something. Looking at them as a whole makes some sense, changing one
>>> term
>>> >> > might lead to inconsistency in some other areas.
>>> >> > I tried to come up with the above terminologies, just to start
>>> >> > conversation. Feel free to share feedback and comments.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks.
>>> >>
>>> >> > Regards
>>> >> > Umar Hayat
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 8:03 AM Umar Hayat <m.umarkiani at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> Hi Tatsuou Ishii,
>>> >> >> Yes I'm planning for 4.2 and work is in progress, I will send
>>> patches in
>>> >> >> the upcoming week.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Regards
>>> >> >> Umar Hayat
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 5:59 AM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at sraoss.co.jp>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> Hi Umar,
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Now that we are getting closer to release Pgpool-II 4.2, I would
>>> like
>>> >> >>> to know if you wish to bring your work into 4.2 or not. If you
>>> wish,
>>> >> >>> can you please tell us the time line for the patch?
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 4:33 PM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at sraoss.co.jp
>>> >
>>> >> >>> wrote:
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> > Hi Hackers,
>>> >> >>> >> > Recently PG community did a language clean up ( to make it
>>> more
>>> >> >>> >> inclusive )
>>> >> >>> >> > for Server, including docs and code (see here
>>> >> >>> >> > <
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >>
>>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200615182235.x7lch5n6kcjq4aue@alap3.anarazel.de
>>> >> >>> >> >).
>>> >> >>> >> > Most changes were related to renaming "slave" and "master"
>>> >> >>> terminologies.
>>> >> >>> >> > Do we have any plans to make such changes to make pgpool
>>> >> consistent
>>> >> >>> with
>>> >> >>> >> > Server as well as in general Pgpool specific things ?
>>> >> >>> >> > If we do have a plan, it would need multiple patches as it
>>> would
>>> >> >>> affect
>>> >> >>> >> > docs, code and configuration and samples.
>>> >> >>> >> > Let me know suggestions and thoughts and I can work on this.
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> It seems the discussion is still on going? I mean it has not
>>> been
>>> >> >>> >> committed yet?
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >>
>>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20200615182235.x7lch5n6kcjq4aue%40alap3.anarazel.de
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> Discussion is going on for two pending point which are not part
>>> of
>>> >> >>> patches
>>> >> >>> > ( postmaster & master branch) and one WIP patch(multi-master),
>>> rest
>>> >> of
>>> >> >>> the
>>> >> >>> > 7 patches for that thread are committed.
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>>
>>> >>
>>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=229f8c219f8fffacc253eca6023eab10a16eb009
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>>
>>> >>
>>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=5e7bbb528638c0f6d585bab107ec7a19e3a39deb
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>>
>>> >>
>>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=e07633646a22734e85d7fc58a66855f747128e6b
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>>
>>> >>
>>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=9e101cf60612f4be4f855d7393531900c2986a55
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>>
>>> >>
>>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=09dfd430118f1fadf52a782db5ee161b1eb16337
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>>
>>> >>
>>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=7c89f8a5b810d10dae300ec58ea7d70024e9123e
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>>
>>> >>
>>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=a9a4a7ad565b136cbee735d4bb505d98d06da522
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >> The topic has not been discussed yet in pgpool-hackers, but I
>>> >> >>> >> personally think we need to do something soon or later anyway.
>>> My
>>> >> >>> >> concern is that that might require user-visible changes like:
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> master
>>> >> >>> >> slave
>>> >> >>> >> white_function_list
>>> >> >>> >> black_function_list
>>> >> >>> >> black_query_pattern_list
>>> >> >>> >> white_memqcache_table_list
>>> >> >>> >> black_memqcache_table_list
>>> >> >>> >> follow_master_command
>>> >> >>> >> relcache_query_target = master
>>> >> >>> >> [maybe more...]
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> Is it possible for you to come with a proposal for this so that
>>> >> pgpool
>>> >> >>> >> hackers could start discussion?
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> Best regards,
>>> >> >>> >> --
>>> >> >>> >> Tatsuo Ishii
>>> >> >>> >> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
>>> >> >>> >> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
>>> >> >>> >> Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> > Sure, I will create proposal for different sections and patches
>>> to
>>> >> >>> discuss
>>> >> >>> > it further.
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> > Thanks
>>> >> >>> > Umar Hayat
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>