| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomonari Katsumata <t(dot)katsumata1122(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomonari Katsumata <katsumata(dot)tomonari(at)po(dot)ntts(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all? |
| Date: | 2013-08-19 17:27:29 |
| Message-ID: | 21942.1376933249@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:20:42AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I think "promote" file should trigger the fast promotion, and the
>> filename to trigger the slow mode should be called
>> "fallback_promote" or "safe_promote" or something like that. There
>> wasn't any good reason to change the filename primarily used. It
>> might even break people's scripts for no good reason, if people are
>> creating the $PGDATA/promote file themselves without using pg_ctl.
>>
>> (I raised this back in April, but Simon argued strongly for the
>> current situation. I never understood why.
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/517798AE.30203@vmware.com)
> +1
If we're going to change this in 9.3, it needs to happen *now*, as in
the next couple hours, because I plan to wrap rc1 this afternoon.
Please stop discussing and commit something.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-08-19 17:41:37 | Re: GetTransactionSnapshot() in enum.c |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-08-19 17:20:12 | Re: Backup throttling |