Re: Document recovery_target_action behavior?
| От | Jonathan S. Katz |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Document recovery_target_action behavior? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 92f5d1ea-bed7-cb7b-bb13-01d112860bcf@postgresql.org обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Document recovery_target_action behavior? (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/28/19 12:00 PM, David Steele wrote: > On 9/28/19 11:14 AM, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 2:52 AM David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote: >> >>> The question for the old versions: is this something that should be >>> fixed in the code or in the documentation? >>> >>> My vote is to make this explicit in the documentation, since changing >>> the recovery behavior in old versions could lead to nasty surprises. >> >> +1 to update the documentation. FYI, documentation to compare, PG11: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/11/recovery-target-settings.html#RECOVERY-TARGET-ACTION PG12: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/runtime-config-wal.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-WAL-RECOVERY-TARGET After reading through, yes, I agree that +1 we should modify the documentation. And +1 for not modifying the behavior in the supported PG < 12 versions, that could certainly catch people by surprise. > > OK, I'll put that on my list for after GA. This has been the behavior > since 9.1 so it hardly seems like an emergency. > > The behavior change in 12 may be a surprise for users, though, perhaps > we should add something to the Streaming Replication and Recovery > changes section in the release notes? > > Looping in Jonathan to see if he thinks that's a good idea. I would suggest we add a bullet to the "E.1.2 Migration to Version 12"[1] section as one could see this behavior change as being "incompatible" with older versions. Moving aside the "recovery.conf" file change, if you did not specify your "recovery_target_action" but expect your instance to be available (albeit paused), you may be in for a surprise, especially if you have things automated. I don't know if I would put it in the "E.1.3.2" section though, but I could be convinced either way. Do you have some suggested wording? I could attempt to cobble together a quick patch. Thanks, Jonathan [1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/release-12.html
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: