Re: patch proposal - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Venkata B Nagothi
Subject Re: patch proposal
Date
Msg-id CAEyp7J8pXiKUme3gY3bzzYXDra86X1866gCABzq1ZpC50uZW6Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: patch proposal  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: patch proposal  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> I could see supporting an additional "pause" option that means "pause at
> the end of WAL if you don't reach the recovery target point".  I'd also
> be happy with a warning being emitted in the log if the recovery target
> point isn't reached before reaching the end of WAL, but I don't think it
> makes sense to change the existing behavior.

Indeed, let's not change the existing behavior. A warning showing up
by default would be useful in itself, even if there are people that I
think set up overly high recovery targets to be sure to replay WAL as
much as possible. As recovery_target_action has meaning when a
recovery target has been reached, I would guess that we would want a
new option that has the same mapping value as recovery_target_action,
except that it activates when the target recovery is *not* reached.
Hence it would be possible to shutdown, pause or promote at will when
recovery completes, and be able to take a separate action is the
recovery target is indeed reached. The default of this parameter would
be "promote", which is what happens now.

Yes, a new parameter with same options as recovery_target_action is the idea i had in mind as well and i have the following queries while working through the patch design -

Query 1

What about the existing parameter called "recovery_target" which accepts only one value "immediate", which will be similar to the "promote" option with the to-be-introduced new parameter.
Since this parameter's behaviour will be incorporated into the new parameter, I think, this parameter can be deprecated from the next PostgreSQL version ?

Query 2

I am thinking that the new parameter name should be "recovery_target_incomplete" or "recovery_target_incomplete_action" which (by name) suggests that recovery target point is not yet reached and accepts options "pause","promote" and "shutdown".

The other alternative name i thought of was - "recovery_target_immediate_action", which (by name) suggests the action to be taken when the recovery does not reach the actual set recovery target and reaches immediate consistent point.

Any comments, suggestions ?

Regards,
Venkata B N

Fujitsu Australia

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: increasing the default WAL segment size
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: increasing the default WAL segment size