From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [patch] demote |
Date: | 2020-06-18 17:24:38 |
Message-ID: | 1554844.1592501078@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:
> ... To go back to recovery rather than just to a read-only
> state, I think you'd need to grapple with some additional issues that
> patch doesn't touch, like some of the snapshot-taking stuff, but I
> think you still need to solve all of the problems that it does deal
> with, unless you're OK with killing every session.
It seems like this is the core decision that needs to be taken. If
we're willing to have these state transitions include a server restart,
then many things get simpler. If we're not, it's gonna cost us in
code complexity and hence bugs. Maybe the usability gain is worth it,
or maybe not.
I think it would probably be worth the trouble to pursue both designs in
parallel for awhile, so we can get a better handle on exactly how much
complexity we're buying into with the more ambitious definition.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Cary Huang | 2020-06-18 17:41:28 | Re: Internal key management system |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-06-18 17:16:23 | Re: [patch] demote |