Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUCpseudo-variable. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUCpseudo-variable.
Date
Msg-id 84dac867-d911-8f28-776b-a868dde86ee2@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable.  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable.  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable.  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 3/22/17 14:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The opposite means primary.  I can flip the GUC name to "is_primary", if
>> that's clearer.
> Hmm, I don't find that clearer.  "hot standby" has a very specific
> meaning; "primary" isn't vague, but I would say it's less specific.

The problem I have is that there is already a GUC named "hot_standby",
which determines whether an instance is in hot (as opposed to warm?)
mode if it is a standby.  This is proposing to add a setting named
"in_hot_standby" which says nothing about the hotness, but something
about the standbyness.  Note that these are all in the same namespace.

I think we could use "in_recovery", which would be consistent with
existing naming.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively)partitioned tables
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size