Re: recovery consistent != hot standby

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: recovery consistent != hot standby
Date: 2010-05-14 21:23:18
Message-ID: 10877.1273872198@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PM_HOT_STANDBY
> PMSIGNAL_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PMSIGNAL_BEGIN_HOT_STANDBY

+1. From the point of view of the postmaster, whether the state
transition happens immediately upon reaching consistency, or at a
later time, or perhaps even earlier (if we could make that work)
is not relevant. What's relevant is that it's allowed to let in
hot-standby backends. So the current naming overspecifies the
meaning of the state and the transition event.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-05-14 21:27:01 Re: Generating Lots of PKs with nextval(): A Feature Proposal
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2010-05-14 21:19:03 Re: Parameter oddness; was HS/SR Assert server crash