| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Allow reload recovery.conf during recovery |
| Date: | 2018-05-04 14:43:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20180504144319.GA11517@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 05:19:26PM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> I did not find previous discussions.
There have been a lot of discussions across the years about switching
recovery parameters to use the GUC infrastructure, please see those
two ones:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CABUevEy5aWuwySXEC6i3JA6cvy8agGZHQbOn0RVZ4h4oxM0Dkw%40mail.gmail.com
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJKUy5id1eyweK0W4%2ByyCM6%2B-qYs9erLidUmb%3D1a-QYBgTW4Qw%40mail.gmail.com
And more recently this one which reached a kind of agreement:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CANP8%2BjLO5fmfudbB1b1iw3pTdOK1HBM%3DxMTaRfOa5zpDVcqzew%40mail.gmail.com
Parameters in recovery.conf now have a level equivalent to
GUC_POSTMASTER as those are just read when the startup process finds a
recovery.conf file and are never changed. Before making some of them as
reloadable, let's switch them to be GUCs first and not re-invent the
SIGHUP handling of parameters as your patch does. And after let's
discuss about switching some of them to GUC_SIGHUP.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-05-04 14:58:22 | Negative DST, or, should we delay using tzdata 2018e update? |
| Previous Message | Mike Blackwell | 2018-05-04 14:30:05 | Re: pgsql: Fix precedence problem in new Perl code. |