Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2
Date: 2020-04-21 06:48:02
Message-ID: d1fc703a-3391-c5b3-82e6-c44c92179e97@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020/04/21 15:36, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:29:54PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> Yeah, but that's not documented. So I don't think that we need to keep
>> the backward-compatibility for that.
>>
>> Also in that case, non-fast promotion is triggered. Since my patch
>> tries to remove non-fast promotion, it's intentional to prevent them
>> from doing that. But you think that we should not drop that because
>> there are still some users for that?
>
> It would be good to ask around to folks maintaining HA solutions about
> that change at least, as there could be a point in still letting
> promotion to happen in this case, but switch silently to the fast
> path.

*If* there are some HA solutions doing that, IMO that they should be changed
so that the documented official way to trigger promotion (i.e., pg_ctl promote,
pg_promote or trigger_file) is used instead.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2020-04-21 07:21:06 Re: PG compilation error with Visual Studio 2015/2017/2019
Previous Message Andres Freund 2020-04-21 06:44:20 Re: design for parallel backup