From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fast promotion not used when doing a recovery_target PITR restore? |
Date: | 2017-06-22 17:34:59 |
Message-ID: | 20170622173459.skhepqxq3glp3pwz@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-06-22 14:04:42 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > When doing a PITR style recovery, with recovery target set, we're
> > currently not doing a fast promotion, in contrast to the handling when
> > doing a pg_ctl or trigger file based promotion. That can prolong making
> > the server available for writes.
> >
> > I can't really see a reason for this?
>
> Yes, you are right. I see no reason either why this cannot be done.
> Why not just switching fast_promote to true in when using
> RECOVERY_TARGET_ACTION_PROMOTE? That's a bug, not a critical one
> though.
I don't think it's really a bug - just a missed optimization. I'd
personally not be in favor of backpatching this - it'll have some chance
of screwing things up, even if I hope that chance is fairly small.
As a wider discussion, I wonder if we should keep non-fast promotion for
anything but actual crash recovery? And even there it might actually be
a pretty good idea to not force a full checkpoint - getting up fast
after a crash is kinda important..
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-22 17:40:46 | Re: Stale comments in vacuumlazy.c |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-22 17:33:56 | Re: possible self-deadlock window after bad ProcessStartupPacket |