From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Simplifying "standby mode" |
Date: | 2006-08-07 15:37:58 |
Message-ID: | 28359.1154965078@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> If we are in standby mode, then rather than ending recovery we go into a
> wait loop. We poll for the next file, then sleep for 1000 ms, then poll
> again. When a file arrives we mark a restartpoint each checkpoint.
> We need the standby_mode to signify the difference in behaviour at
> end-of-logs, but we may not need a parameter of that exact name.
> The piece I have been puzzling over is how to initiate a failover when
> in standby_mode. I've not come up with a better solution than checking
> for the existence of a trigger file each time round the next-file wait
> loop. This would use a naming convention to indicate the port number,
> allowing us to uniquely identify a cluster on any single server. That's
> about as portable and generic as you'll get.
The original intention was that all this sort of logic was to be
external in the recovery_command script. I'm pretty dubious about
freezing it in the C code when there's not yet an established
convention for how it should work. I'd kinda like to see a widely
accepted recovery_command script before we move the logic inside
the server.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-08-07 15:54:37 | Re: "Constraint exclusion" is not general enough |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-08-07 15:36:11 | Re: Corner case in xlog stuff: what happens exactly at a |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-08-07 15:57:04 | Re: Simplifying "standby mode" |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-08-07 15:31:19 | Re: Simplifying "standby mode" |