On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 11:42 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 10:37 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2022-11-21 at 10:13 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > > I'll wait 24 hours before committing, to
> > > provide a last chance for anyone who wants to complain about dropping
> > > promote_trigger_file.
> >
> > Remove "promote_trigger_file"? Now I have never seen anybody use that
> > parameter, but I don't think that it is a good idea to deviate from our
> > usual standard of deprecating a feature for about five years before
> > actually removing it.
>
> I'm not sure what the guidelines are here, however years have gone by
> since pg_ctl promote [1] in 2011 and pg_promote() [2] in 2018 were
> added. With two such alternatives in place for many years, it was sort
> of an undeclared deprecation of promote_trigger_file GUC. And the
> changes required to move to newer ways from the GUC aren't that hard
> for those who're still relying on the GUC. Therefore, I think it's now
> time for us to do away with the GUC.
I disagree. With the same argument, you could rip out "serial", since we
have supported identity columns since v11.
I understand the desire to avoid needless wakeups, but isn't it possible
to only perform the regular poll if "promote_trigger_file" is set?
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
