Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomonari Katsumata <t(dot)katsumata1122(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomonari Katsumata <katsumata(dot)tomonari(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all?
Date: 2013-08-19 17:42:21
Message-ID: 20130819174221.GE9087@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 01:27:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:20:42AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> I think "promote" file should trigger the fast promotion, and the
> >> filename to trigger the slow mode should be called
> >> "fallback_promote" or "safe_promote" or something like that. There
> >> wasn't any good reason to change the filename primarily used. It
> >> might even break people's scripts for no good reason, if people are
> >> creating the $PGDATA/promote file themselves without using pg_ctl.
> >>
> >> (I raised this back in April, but Simon argued strongly for the
> >> current situation. I never understood why.
> >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/517798AE.30203@vmware.com)
>
> > +1
>
> If we're going to change this in 9.3, it needs to happen *now*, as in
> the next couple hours, because I plan to wrap rc1 this afternoon.
> Please stop discussing and commit something.

FYI, Tom, I think Heikki is working on it now.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2013-08-19 17:45:23 Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-08-19 17:41:37 Re: GetTransactionSnapshot() in enum.c