| From: | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, ian(dot)barwick(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, cyberdemn(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |
| Date: | 2020-04-22 18:56:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20200422205641.52750171@firost |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:51:15 +0900
Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2020/04/22 10:53, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
> [...]
>
> Thanks all for checking whether the change affects each HA solution!
Unless I'm wrong, we don't have feedback from Patroni team.
I did some quick grep and it seems to rely on "pg_ctl promote" as well.
Moreover, the latest commit 80fbe9005 force a checkpoint right after the
promote. So I suppose they don't use non-fast promote.
I CC'ed Alexander Kukushkin to this discussion, so at least he is aware of
this topic.
Regards,
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-22 19:03:24 | Re: design for parallel backup |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2020-04-22 18:42:17 | Re: More efficient RI checks - take 2 |