On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:51 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>> You could also argue for "log a warning, continue until we can open for Hot
>>> standby, then pause".
>>
>> I don't like that one much.
>>
>>> I can write the patch once we know what we want. All of those options sound
>>> reasonable to me. This is such a corner-case that it doesn't make sense to
>>> make it user-configurable, though.
>>
>> I agree. Since pause_at_recovery_target is ignored when
>> hot_standby=off, I think it would be consistent to treat the case
>> where hot_standby=on but can't actually be initiated the same way -
>> just ignore the pause request and enter normal running.
>
> When hot_standby = on and the recovery target is ahead of the consistent point,
> the server doesn't enter normal running since FATAL error happens. So I think
> that it's more consistent to prevent the server from entering normal
> running also
> when hot_standby = off.
Actually, my previous email was all nonsense, wasn't it? If we don't
reach the consistency point, we can't enter normal running anyway -
shut down is the only option no matter what.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
