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

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2
Date
Msg-id 5936bac5-3dea-f9f9-7cd6-67c40ed22c3d@oss.nttdata.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallbackpromotion? take 2  (Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr@dalibo.com>)
Responses Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2  (Hamid Akhtar <hamid.akhtar@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 2020/04/23 3:56, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> 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.

Thanks for checking that!

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: backup manifests
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Append can break run-time partition pruning