Re: Return value of pg_promote()
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Return value of pg_promote() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 32454943-9f9e-dbb6-72e7-83c3462a21f2@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Return value of pg_promote() (Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>) |
Ответы |
Re: Return value of pg_promote()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2023/06/07 2:00, Laurenz Albe wrote: > On Tue, 2023-06-06 at 16:35 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: >> At present, pg_promote() returns true to the caller on successful >> promotion of standby, however it returns false in multiple scenarios >> which includes: >> >> 1) The SIGUSR1 signal could not be sent to the postmaster process. >> 2) The postmaster died during standby promotion. >> 3) Standby couldn't be promoted within the specified wait time. >> >> For an application calling this function, if pg_promote returns false, >> it is hard to interpret the reason behind it. So I think we should >> *only* allow pg_promote to return false when the server could not be >> promoted in the given wait time and in other scenarios it should just >> throw an error (FATAL, ERROR ... depending on the type of failure that >> occurred). Please let me know your thoughts on this change. thanks.! > > As the original author, I'd say that that sounds reasonable, particularly > in case #1. If the postmaster dies, we are going to die too, so it > probably doesn't matter much. But I think an error is certainly also > correct in that case. +1 Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: