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 20130819174221.GE9087@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to 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 01:27:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 11:20:42AM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> 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
> 
> If we're going to change this in 9.3, it needs to happen *now*, as in
> the next couple hours, because I plan to wrap rc1 this afternoon.
> Please stop discussing and commit something.

FYI, Tom, I think Heikki is working on it now.

--  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: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: GetTransactionSnapshot() in enum.c
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: UNNEST with multiple args, and TABLE with multiple funcs