Re: New trigger option of pg_standby - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Guillaume Smet
Subject Re: New trigger option of pg_standby
Date
Msg-id 1d4e0c10903260454p10107c23j7ff9a3de8be09dde@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New trigger option of pg_standby  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: New trigger option of pg_standby  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>)
Re: New trigger option of pg_standby  (Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi Simon.

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:50 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Earlier, we discussed having a single trigger file that contains an
> option rather than two distinct trigger files. That design is better
> because it allows the user to choose at failover time, rather than
> making a binding decision at config time. That solution would be the
> ideal one, IMHO, because it gives user more choice - and would allow us
> to keep the -t option meaningfully. In that case the default should be
> patience.

Or you can define both files in your command line to have the choice.

I like the idea of removing -t and adding 2 new options so that people
are warned about the intended behavior.

Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about how we should fix it as I
don't use pg_standby personnally, just that we should. The two options
you mention have their own merits.

-- 
Guillaume


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Guillaume Smet
Date:
Subject: Re: 8.4 release notes proof reading 1/2
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump Add dumping of comments on index columns