Re: patch proposal
От | Venkata B Nagothi |
---|---|
Тема | Re: patch proposal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEyp7J9KAv8-sVndHgXt-mcSEZPqhbODU8CAZ5E8nZjpzynJpA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: patch proposal (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> I could see supporting an additional "pause" option that means "pause at
> the end of WAL if you don't reach the recovery target point". I'd also
> be happy with a warning being emitted in the log if the recovery target
> point isn't reached before reaching the end of WAL, but I don't think it
> makes sense to change the existing behavior.
Indeed, let's not change the existing behavior. A warning showing up
by default would be useful in itself, even if there are people that I
think set up overly high recovery targets to be sure to replay WAL as
much as possible. As recovery_target_action has meaning when a
recovery target has been reached, I would guess that we would want a
new option that has the same mapping value as recovery_target_action,
except that it activates when the target recovery is *not* reached.
Hence it would be possible to shutdown, pause or promote at will when
recovery completes, and be able to take a separate action is the
recovery target is indeed reached. The default of this parameter would
be "promote", which is what happens now.
Agreed. I understand the complexities with backward compatibility on changing the existing behaviour.
Even, I was more inclined towards introducing a new parameter and as suggested, will consider the options pause, shutdown or promote for new parameter.
Thanks for the inputs and advises.
Regards,
Venkata B N
Fujitsu Australia
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: