| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Asif Naeem <anaeem(dot)it(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add shutdown_at_recovery_target option to recovery.conf |
| Date: | 2014-11-19 15:47:05 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJnUXO6PivvBo9Y03EizcsjzctE7Y4K3bz924KLtrzZvA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 19 November 2014 13:13, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> I've reworded docs a little.
Done
> If we ask for PAUSE and we're not in HotStandby it just ignores it,
> which means it changes into PROMOTE. My feeling is that we should
> change that into a SHUTDOWN, not a PROMOTE.
Done
>
> Also, for the Shutdown itself, why are we not using
> kill(PostmasterPid, SIGINT)?
Done
Other plan is to throw a FATAL message.
> That gives a clean, fast shutdown rather than what looks like a crash.
I've also changed the location of where we do
RECOVERY_TARGET_ACTION_SHUTDOWN, so its in the same place as where we
pause.
I've also moved the check to see if we should throw FATAL because
aren't yet consistent to *before* we do any actionOnRecoveryTarget
stuff. It seems essential that we know that earlier rather than later.
Thoughts?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| shutdown_at_recovery_target-v4.patch | application/octet-stream | 9.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-11-19 15:57:27 | Re: Add shutdown_at_recovery_target option to recovery.conf |
| Previous Message | Mike Blackwell | 2014-11-19 15:42:53 | Re: proposal: plpgsql - Assert statement |