On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Presumably you mean that the way its currently coded is the way it should stay?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
