Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API
Date
Msg-id CANP8+jKF7nWypEzjcG7Ujrxgjzfjhte2P0CaVuK6q8PZkeL1Ww@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API  (Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 6 September 2016 at 08:06, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> At 2016-09-06 14:40:54 +0900, michael.paquier@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> my best advice here is to make all those recovery_target_* parameters
>> PGC_POSTMASTER so as they are loaded only once when the server starts,
>> and then we define the recovery target type used in the startup
>> process instead of trying to do so at GUC level.
>
> I understand your approach in light of the GUC code, but I see things a
> bit differently—the complexity comes largely from the specific handling
> of recovery_target. I'll try to come up with a way to do it better. If
> not, we have your suggestion to fall back on.

As I said upthread...
"We definitely want most of them set at RELOAD, especially recovery targets."
So PGC_POSTMASTER is not the objective.

How then to proceed?

I guess we could keep the old parameters and make them PGC_POSTMASTER,
but also provide a new parameter called recovery_target that
simplifies the API and is PGC_SIGHUP. That way we resolve the
annoyance of handling the current ones but keep compatibility for
those who can't move on, just yet.

--
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Daniel Verite"
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Next
From: Aleksander Alekseev
Date:
Subject: Re: Suggestions for first contribution?