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. However, I
don't have a super-strong feeling that that's the only sensible way to
go, so count me as +0.5 for that approach.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
