Re: recovery_target_action = pause & hot_standby = off
От | Petr Jelinek |
---|---|
Тема | Re: recovery_target_action = pause & hot_standby = off |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 550593D0.3020106@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: recovery_target_action = pause & hot_standby = off (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 15/03/15 14:51, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com > <mailto:andres@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote: > > On 2015-03-12 15:52:02 +0100, Andres Freund wrote: > > /* > > * Override any inconsistent requests. Not that this is a > change > > * of behaviour in 9.5; prior to this we simply ignored a > request > > * to pause if hot_standby = off, which was surprising > behaviour. > > */ > > if (recoveryTargetAction == RECOVERY_TARGET_ACTION_PAUSE && > > recoveryTargetActionSet && > > standbyState == STANDBY_DISABLED) > > recoveryTargetAction = RECOVERY_TARGET_ACTION_SHUTDOWN; > > While it's easy enough to fix I rather dislike the whole intent here > though. *Silently* switching the mode of operation in a rather > significant way seems like a bad idea to me. At the very least we need > to emit a LOG message about this; but I think it'd be much better to > error out instead. > > <9.5's behaviour was already quite surprising. But changing things to a > different surprising behaviour seems like a bad idea. > > > +1. Especially for "sensitive" operations like this, having > predictable-behavior-or-error is usually the best choice. > Thinking about it again now, it does seem that ignoring user setting because it's in conflict with another user setting is a bad idea and I think we in general throw errors on those. So +1 from me also. -- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: