[pgpool-hackers: 3824] Re: Proposal: language cleanup in Pgpool-II
Tatsuo Ishii
ishii at sraoss.co.jp
Thu Sep 17 19:07:40 JST 2020
Hi Umar,
I have applied your patches along with Japanese doc update.
Thank you!
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
> 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
>> >>> >> >>>
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
More information about the pgpool-hackers
mailing list