| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Zheng Li <zhengli10(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reducing power consumption on idle servers |
| Date: | 2022-11-17 20:38:15 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZr1_S+evWhEzT+EWQhLZk1-omRXsN+aULW0-SX-iu+Lg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 2:55 AM Simon Riggs
<simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> No, it will have a direct effect only on people using promote_trigger_file
> who do not read and act upon the deprecation notice before upgrading
> by making a one line change to their failover scripts.
TBH, I wonder if we shouldn't just nuke promote_trigger_file.
pg_promote was added in 2018, and pg_ctl promote was added in 2011. So
even if we haven't said promote_trigger_file was deprecated, it hasn't
been the state-of-the-art way of doing this in a really long time. If
we think that there are still a lot of people using it, or if popular
tools are relying on it, then perhaps a deprecation period is
warranted anyway. But I think we should at least consider the
possibility that it's OK to just get rid of it right away.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-11-17 21:13:09 | Re: ubsan fails on 32bit builds |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2022-11-17 20:29:53 | Re: SUBTRANS: Minimizing calls to SubTransSetParent() |