[pgpool-hackers: 3822] Re: Proposal: language cleanup in Pgpool-II

Umar Hayat m.umarkiani at gmail.com
Thu Sep 17 13:32:58 JST 2020 

Hi Ishii,
Due to a recent commit, v2-005 failed in runtime.sgml file (and subsequent
patches failed). Please find the attached v3-005 patch ( you can use other
6 patches from v2 ).

Regards
Umar Hayat

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 3:08 AM Tatsuo Ishii <ishii at sraoss.co.jp> wrote:

> 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
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >>
> >>>
> >>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.sraoss.jp/pipermail/pgpool-hackers/attachments/20200917/c1cfbb58/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: v3-005-master-slave-to-native-replication.diff
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 53694 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.sraoss.jp/pipermail/pgpool-hackers/attachments/20200917/c1cfbb58/attachment-0001.obj>

More information about the pgpool-hackers mailing list