Re: recovery consistent != hot standby - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: recovery consistent != hot standby
Date
Msg-id 10877.1273872198@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to recovery consistent != hot standby  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: recovery consistent != hot standby
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PM_HOT_STANDBY
> PMSIGNAL_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PMSIGNAL_BEGIN_HOT_STANDBY

+1.  From the point of view of the postmaster, whether the state
transition happens immediately upon reaching consistency, or at a
later time, or perhaps even earlier (if we could make that work)
is not relevant.  What's relevant is that it's allowed to let in
hot-standby backends.  So the current naming overspecifies the
meaning of the state and the transition event.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Kevin Grittner"
Date:
Subject: Re: Parameter oddness; was HS/SR Assert server crash
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Generating Lots of PKs with nextval(): A Feature Proposal