From: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2022-11-16 12:47:19 |
Message-ID: | CALj2ACUvaX3dE8oO6qDnq0Ch5KnPC34hK-zS8B+rrs+7BEnnhQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 2:34 PM Simon Riggs
<simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Reposting v6 now so that patch tester doesn't think this has failed
> when the patch on other thread gets applied.
Intention of the patch, that is, to get rid of promote_trigger_file
GUC sometime in future, looks good to me. However, the timeout change
to 60 sec from 5 sec seems far-reaching. While it discourages the use
of the GUC, it can impact many existing production servers that still
rely on promote_trigger_file as it can increase the failover times
impacting SLAs around failover.
How about retaining 5 sec as-is and adding a WARNING in
promote_trigger_file check/assign and in show GUC, in
CheckForStandbyTrigger() whenever PromoteTriggerFile is detected and
specifying about the depreciation in GUC's description?
+ * to react to a trigger file. Direct use of trigger file
+ * is now deprecated and the promote_trigger_file will be
+ * removed in a later release.
I think, adding 'Direct use of trigger file .....' in a next line that
starts with XXX (typically, this represents a TODO item) is good, no?
Also, do we need to add a TODO in postgresql wiki
(https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Todo) possibly under a new section
'Deprecated Features' or 'Features To-Be-Removed In Near Future' or
some other (hm, it seems too vague, but it starts to track such
deprecated items), to not miss on removing the promote_trigger_file in
future releases?
--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2022-11-16 12:56:24 | Re: out of memory in crosstab() |
Previous Message | Michail Nikolaev | 2022-11-16 12:23:46 | Re: Slow standby snapshot |