| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: recovery consistent != hot standby |
| Date: | 2010-05-14 21:23:18 |
| Message-ID: | 10877.1273872198@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PM_HOT_STANDBY
> PMSIGNAL_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PMSIGNAL_BEGIN_HOT_STANDBY
+1. From the point of view of the postmaster, whether the state
transition happens immediately upon reaching consistency, or at a
later time, or perhaps even earlier (if we could make that work)
is not relevant. What's relevant is that it's allowed to let in
hot-standby backends. So the current naming overspecifies the
meaning of the state and the transition event.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-05-14 21:27:01 | Re: Generating Lots of PKs with nextval(): A Feature Proposal |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-05-14 21:19:03 | Re: Parameter oddness; was HS/SR Assert server crash |