From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: recovery_target_action = pause & hot_standby = off |
Date: | 2015-05-01 17:36:41 |
Message-ID: | 20150501173641.GF26678@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:39:26AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-03-16 07:52:20 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 15 March 2015 at 22:38, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry, I don't buy this. If I have "recovery_target_action = 'pause'" in
> > > the config file, I want it to pause.
> >
> > You want it to enter a state where you cannot perform any action other
> > than shutdown?
> >
> > Why would anyone want that?
>
> You actually still could promote. But I'd be perfectly happy if postgres
> said
> ERROR: recovery_target_action = 'pause' in "%s" cannot be used without hot_standby
> DETAIL: Recovery pauses cannot be resumed without SQL level access.
> HINT: Configure hot_standby and try again.
>
> or something roughly like that. If postgres tells me what to change to
> achieve what I want, I have a much higher chance of getting
> there. Especially if it just does something else otherwise.
Where are we on this?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-05-01 17:39:39 | Re: feature freeze and beta schedule |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-01 17:29:45 | Re: cache invalidation for PL/pgsql functions |