Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all?

Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> schrieb:
>On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
>wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2013-08-06 03:24:58 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> We discussed the $SUBJECT in the following threads:
>>>
>http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZbR+WL8E7MF_KRp6fY4FD2pMr11TPiuyjMFX_Vtg1Wrw@mail.gmail.com
>>>
>http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHGQGwEBUvgcx8X+Z0Hh+VdwYcJ8KCuRuLt1jSsxeLxPcX=0_w@mail.gmail.com
>>>
>>> Our consensus seems to remove "not fast" promotion at all
>>> because there is no use case for that promotion.
>>>
>>> Attached patch removes "not fast" promotion. Barring any objections,
>>> I will commit this patch.
>>
>> FWIW I'd rather keep plain promotion for a release or two. TBH, I
>have a
>> bit of trust issues regarding the new method, and I'd like to be able
>to
>> test potential issues against a stock postgres by doing a normal
>instead
>> of a fast promotion.
>
>So we should add new option specifying the promotion mode, into pg_ctl?
>Currently pg_ctl cannot trigger the normal promotion.

I am fine with only supporting doing the promotion in the old fashioned way, but I wouldn't protest against an option either.

>Or, instead of normal promotion, it might be better to use another
>promotion
>technique like shutdown + remove recovery.conf + restart for that
>purpose?

That's a very bad thing to do since it suppresses the timeline increase...

Regards,

Andres

Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.

Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services