Re: [PATCH] remove pg_standby - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: [PATCH] remove pg_standby
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGLrL42NSc-yKVvtGVg_=1zq8NFysy-xg1=4DShFsFVB9g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] remove pg_standby  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] remove pg_standby  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 10:04 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 2020-11-21 20:41, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > Oops.  I guess I'd write something like this.  If we just remove it, then
> > there'd no place to add a new server application, and "client applications"
> > would be the only subsection.
>
> I have committed the typo fix.  I don't have a well-formed opinion yet
> about whether all the reservations about removing pg_standby have been
> addressed.

I would like to commit this, because "waiting restore commands" have
confusing interactions with my proposed prefetching-during-recovery
patch[1].  Here's a version that fixes an error when building the docs
(there was a stray remaining <xref linkend="pgstandby"/>), and adds a
commit message.  Any objections?

Furthermore, I think we should also remove the section of the manual
that describes how to write your own "waiting restore command".
Thoughts?

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BhUKGKFeYPL9K%2BSRixcsx1%2B6HsHhqK%2BPOZyrnnZjw1jERpGcQ%40mail.gmail.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Hou, Zhijie"
Date:
Subject: RE: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...)
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Single transaction in the tablesync worker?