From: | Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | 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: | 2009-03-26 11:54:46 |
Message-ID: | 1d4e0c10903260454p10107c23j7ff9a3de8be09dde@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Simon.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Earlier, we discussed having a single trigger file that contains an
> option rather than two distinct trigger files. That design is better
> because it allows the user to choose at failover time, rather than
> making a binding decision at config time. That solution would be the
> ideal one, IMHO, because it gives user more choice - and would allow us
> to keep the -t option meaningfully. In that case the default should be
> patience.
Or you can define both files in your command line to have the choice.
I like the idea of removing -t and adding 2 new options so that people
are warned about the intended behavior.
Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about how we should fix it as I
don't use pg_standby personnally, just that we should. The two options
you mention have their own merits.
--
Guillaume
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Srinath K | 2009-03-26 14:16:33 | global index - work in progress patch |
Previous Message | Guillaume Smet | 2009-03-26 11:50:01 | Re: 8.4 release notes proof reading 1/2 |