From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomonari Katsumata <t(dot)katsumata1122(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomonari Katsumata <katsumata(dot)tomonari(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all? |
Date: | 2014-05-06 11:59:12 |
Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJSAAK0dFbqNzPp=h8rk0dmgeAfwgkK6-E09Rh9zvFqLw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19 August 2013 09:20, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> On 08.08.2013 20:15, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>
>> Bruce, all:
>>
>>> We seem to be all over the map with the fast promotion code --- some
>>> people don't trust it, some people want an option to enable the old
>>> method, and some people want the old method removed.
>>
>>
>> Having read over this thread, the only reason given for retaining any
>> ability to use "old" promotion code is because people are worried about
>> "fast" promotion being buggy. This seems wrong.
>>
>> Either we have confidence is fast promotion, or we don't. If we don't
>> have confidence, then either (a) more testing is needed, or (b) it
>> shouldn't be the default. Again, here, we are coming up against our
>> lack of any kind of broad replication failure testing.
>
>
> Well, I don't see much harm in keeping the old behavior as an undocumented
> escape hatch, as it is now. The way I'd phrase the current situation is
> this: 9.3 now always does "fast promotion". However, for debugging and
> testing purposes, you can still trigger the old behavior by manually
> creating a file in $PGDATA. That should never be necessary in the field,
> however.
+1, again.
I have removed this item from the 9.4 open items list, since this
issue has already been resolved.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-05-06 12:05:15 | Re: Removing xloginsert_slots? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-05-06 11:59:01 | Re: pg_shmem_allocations view |