Re: recovery consistent != hot standby

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PM_HOT_STANDBY
>> PMSIGNAL_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PMSIGNAL_BEGIN_HOT_STANDBY
>
> +1.  From the point of view of the postmaster, whether the state
> transition happens immediately upon reaching consistency, or at a
> later time, or perhaps even earlier (if we could make that work)
> is not relevant.  What's relevant is that it's allowed to let in
> hot-standby backends.  So the current naming overspecifies the
> meaning of the state and the transition event.

Done.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company