Re: Request for vote to move forward with recovery.conf overhaul

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Request for vote to move forward with recovery.conf overhaul
Date: 2013-01-27 04:41:15
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZ-2H0aY2y+2qW8t9rH-yRfBGtcxU-FbY5JEaV8h6wGxQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:49 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 7:14 AM, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 2013/01/23, at 18:12, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 23 January 2013 04:49, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> - recovery.conf is removed (no backward compatibility in this version
>> >>> of the
>> >>> patch)
>> >>
>> >> If you want to pursue that, you know where it leads. No, rebasing a
>> >> rejected patch doesn't help, its just relighting a fire that shouldn't
>> >> ever have been lit.
>> >>
>> >> Pushing to do that out of order is just going to drain essential time
>> >> out of this CF from all of us.
>> > No problem to support both. The only problem I see is if the same
>> > parameter is defined in recovery.conf and postgresql.conf, is the priority
>> > given to recovery.conf?
>>
>> I would think that if someone created a recovery.conf file they would
>> expect that to be given priority. Otherwise they would know that was a
>> deprecated method and would set it in postgresql.conf only.
>
> Please find attached an half-cooked patch supporting both postgresql.conf
> and recovery.conf. Priority is given to recovery.conf if the same parameter
> is specified in both files. I have updated the docs in consequence but I
> think they can be improved.
> The main modification here is in xlog.c:readRecoveryCommandFile where the
> deparsed output values of recovery.conf is transferred to the new GUCs using
> SetConfigOption($OPTION, $VALUE, PGC_POSTMASTER, PGC_S_OVERRIDE) as bridge.
> This does not work yet, SetConfigOption is not able to detect the new
> values. Comments?

So... what happens when recovery ends? Do the settings loaded from
recovery.conf get reverted, or what?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chen Huajun 2013-01-27 04:42:48 [PATCH]Fix for ecpglib's native language messages output
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-01-27 04:37:57 Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]