Re: New trigger option of pg_standby

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: New trigger option of pg_standby
Date: 2009-03-27 14:36:36
Message-ID: 1238164596.16568.604.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 10:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> If we go with this, I would suggest we make *neither* the default by
> >> removing -t, and adopting two new options: something like -f == fast
> >> failover, -p == patient failover.
>
> > -m smart|fast|immediate :-)
>
> +1 for using a "-m something" type of syntax instead of having to try to
> pick single-letter switches that are mnemonic for the different cases.
> But -1 to those particular mode names --- I think it will invite
> confusion with pg_ctl's behavior.

The choice is between

* one parameter with the option being given as text within trigger file

* two parameters naming different types of trigger file

I don't mind which, as long as it is one of those two, unless there is a
third way to specify things so that user has control at failover time. A
single -m option would hardcode that decision ahead of time, which is
undesirable behaviour, hence the additional complexity being discussed.

--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-03-27 14:43:53 Re: delete quite skip updated rows
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2009-03-27 14:26:23 delete quite skip updated rows