From: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(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: | 2022-11-21 11:43:38 |
Message-ID: | CANbhV-HOoyycDKiuqYbwc7Cn-h9Y6vjz7BYhrdMo+PMYAzar0g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 08:40, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 07:36 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 at 05:07, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 10:13 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > > I'll wait 24 hours before committing, to
> > > > provide a last chance for anyone who wants to complain about dropping
> > > > promote_trigger_file.
> > >
> > > Remove "promote_trigger_file"? Now I have never seen anybody use that
> > > parameter, but I don't think that it is a good idea to deviate from our
> > > usual standard of deprecating a feature for about five years before
> > > actually removing it.
> >
> > We aren't removing the ability to promote, just enforcing a change to
> > a better mechanism, hence I don't see a reason for a long(er)
> > deprecation period than we have already had.
>
> We have had a deprecation period? I looked at the documentation, but found
> no mention of a deprecation. How hard can it be to leave the GUC and only
> poll for the existence of the file if it is set?
>
> I personally don't need the GUC, and I know nobody who does,
Nobody else does either.
> I disagree. With the same argument, you could rip out "serial", since we
> have supported identity columns since v11.
...and this is not a user facing change, only HA systems interface with this.
> but I think
> we should not be cavalier about introducing unnecessary compatibility breaks.
I agree we should not be cavalier, nor has anyone been so. The first
version of the patch was cautious on this very point, but since many
people think we should remove it, it is not a user facing feature and
nobody on this thread knows anybody or anything that uses it, I have
changed my mind and now think we should remove it.
We have two versions to choose from now
* v6 deprecates this option
* v10 removes this option
so it is no effort at all to choose either option.
The main issue is about reducing power usage, so please let's move to
commit something soon, one way or another.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jakub Wartak | 2022-11-21 12:00:34 | Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2022-11-21 11:35:15 | Re: Logical Replication Custom Column Expression |