Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all?
Date
Msg-id 20130819164447.GD9087@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all?  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:20:42AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> And it's even worse if you use 9.3 pg_ctl against a 9.2 server: it
> will create a filed called "fast_promote" and return success, but it
> won't actually do anything.
> 
> 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

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: 'Bruce Momjian'
Date:
Subject: Re: 9.3 release notes suggestions
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] 9.3beta2: Failure to pg_upgrade