| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |
| Date: | 2020-04-21 06:36:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20200421063622.GA33034@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:29:54PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Yeah, but that's not documented. So I don't think that we need to keep
> the backward-compatibility for that.
>
> Also in that case, non-fast promotion is triggered. Since my patch
> tries to remove non-fast promotion, it's intentional to prevent them
> from doing that. But you think that we should not drop that because
> there are still some users for that?
It would be good to ask around to folks maintaining HA solutions about
that change at least, as there could be a point in still letting
promotion to happen in this case, but switch silently to the fast
path.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-21 06:44:20 | Re: design for parallel backup |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-04-21 06:29:54 | Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |