| From: | Paul Guo <pguo(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jimmy Yih <jyih(at)pivotal(dot)io>, Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
| Subject: | Re: Two pg_rewind patches (auto generate recovery conf and ensure clean shutdown) |
| Date: | 2019-07-02 05:54:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAEET0ZGeJg_aRxPHv=i5jd2cvRV1oN5qCX=gXp9tUaA5M2fLGg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:35 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
> On 2019-Apr-19, Paul Guo wrote:
>
> > The below patch runs single mode Postgres if needed to make sure the
> target
> > is cleanly shutdown. A new option is added (off by default).
> > v2-0001-Ensure-target-clean-shutdown-at-beginning-of-pg_r.patch
>
> Why do we need an option for this? Is there a reason not to do this
> unconditionally?
>
There is concern about this (see previous emails in this thread). On
greenplum (MPP DB based on Postgres),
we unconditionally do this. I'm not sure about usually how Postgres users
do this when there is an unclean shutdown,
but providing an option seem to be safer to avoid breaking existing
script/service whatever. If many people
think this option is unnecessary, I'm fine to remove the option and keep
the code logic.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-07-02 06:25:44 | Re: C testing for Postgres |
| Previous Message | Paul Guo | 2019-07-02 05:46:21 | Re: Two pg_rewind patches (auto generate recovery conf and ensure clean shutdown) |