| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time |
| Date: | 2017-06-26 20:33:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20170626203347.6efkdwiadyt33edy@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-06-26 16:26:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2017-06-26 16:19:16 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Sure, what do you think an appropriate behavior would be?
>
> > It'd not be unreasonble to check pg_control first, and only after that
> > indicates readyness check via the protocol.
>
> Hm, that's a thought. The problem here isn't the frequency of checks,
> but the log spam.
Right. I think to deal with hot-standby we'd probably have to add new
state to the control file however. We don't just want to treat the
server as ready once DB_IN_PRODUCTION is reached.
Arguably we could and should improve the logic when the server has
started, right now it's pretty messy because we never treat a standby as
up if hot_standby is disabled...
- Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-06-26 20:39:46 | Re: Pluggable storage |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-06-26 20:26:00 | Re: Reducing pg_ctl's reaction time |