Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais
Subject Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2
Date
Msg-id 20200422205641.52750171@firost
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>)
Responses Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:51:15 +0900
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:

> On 2020/04/22 10:53, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
> 
> Thanks all for checking whether the change affects each HA solution!

Unless I'm wrong, we don't have feedback from Patroni team.

I did some quick grep and it seems to rely on "pg_ctl promote" as well.
Moreover, the latest commit 80fbe9005 force a checkpoint right after the
promote. So I suppose they don't use non-fast promote.

I CC'ed Alexander Kukushkin to this discussion, so at least he is aware of
this topic.

Regards,



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: More efficient RI checks - take 2
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: design for parallel backup