| From: | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: replay pause vs. standby promotion |
| Date: | 2020-03-04 14:40:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20200304154019.707040ec@firost |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 04 Mar 2020 15:00:54 +0300
Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> wrote:
> Hello
>
> > I want to start this discussion because this is related to the patch
> > (propoesd at the thread [1]) that I'm reviewing. It does that partially,
> > i.e., prefers the promotion only when the pause is requested by
> > recovery_target_action=pause. But I think that it's reasonable and
> > more consistent to do that whether whichever the pause is requested
> > by pg_wal_replay_pause() or recovery_target_action.
>
> +1.
+1
And pg_wal_replay_pause () should probably raise an error explaining the
standby ignores the pause because of ongoing promotion.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2020-03-04 14:41:16 | Re: Some improvements to numeric sqrt() and ln() |
| Previous Message | Georgios Kokolatos | 2020-03-04 14:34:53 | Re: Refactor compile-time assertion checks for C/C++ |