On 1 May 2013 14:55, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 1 May 2013 11:25, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>> Make fast promotion the default promotion mode.
>>>> Continue to allow a request for synchronous
>>>> checkpoints as a mechanism in case of problems.
>>>
>>> Is there clean way to request synchronous checkpoint at the standby promotion?
>>> I'm sure that we can do that by creating the file "promote" and
>>> sending the SIGUSR1
>>> signal to the postmaster. Or by using previous version of pg_ctl.
>>> These are not clean
>>> and would confuse users.
>>
>> I just removed the user interface at Heikki's request, so yes, I can
>> see its not ideal interface.
>>
>> My wish was to have a mechanism should we need it.
>>
>> A third option would be to not have any way at all.
>>
>> What is your preference?
>
> My preference is adding something like --full-checkpoint option into
> pg_ctl promote.
>
> As far as I understand Heikki's request correctly, he dislikes the
> approach reusing
> -m option in pg_ctl promote. That is, previous behavior of the promotion is not
> "smarter" than current one, but we have to have specified "-m smart" to choose
> the previous behavior of the promotion. ISTM that his this request makes sense.
>
> So I'd like to propose to add new option which would not confuse
> users, into pg_ctl
> promote.
Heikki said "...remove pg_ctl -m fast/smart option altogether. There
is no need to expose that to users."
So it is no longer exposed to users. If there are others that share
that opinion we may change this.
--Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
