Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
От | Josh Berkus |
---|---|
Тема | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4E6A4FA1.9050609@agliodbs.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/9/11 7:05 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: >> I have to wonder though, if it wouldn't be less confusing to just get >> rid of recovery.conf and use a *different* file for this. Just to make >> it clear it's not a config file, but just a boolean exists/notexists >> state. > > +1. If it's not a configuration file anymore, it shouldn't be called > one. I'm in favor of this. People are sufficiently confused by the existing behavior that we're not going to confuse them further by changing it. In fact: currently we have a "trigger file" concept in recovery.conf. Might we unite the trigger file concept with the concept of having a file to indicate that server is a replica on startup? i.e. in postgresql.conf we have two settings: replication_status = {master,standby} failover_trigger_file = '' #defaults to $PGDATA/master_trigger If replication_status = master, then the server is a standalone or master node. If replication_status = standby, then the server is a PITR, warm standby, or hot standby replica. If the failover_trigger_file is created and detected, then PostgreSQL will reload in master mode. replication_status will get set to "master" so that it's easy to tell this from the command line. The above would be a lot easier to comprehend than the current behavior, and would allow us all of the same options the current behavoir does. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: