Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: s/recovery_connections/allow_standby_queries/, or something like that?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: s/recovery_connections/allow_standby_queries/, or something like that?
Date: 2010-04-29 17:49:15
Message-ID: 15660.1272563355@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think a different name would help.  The best idea I can come up with
>> on the spur of the moment is "allow_standby_queries", but I'm not sure
>> that can't be improved on.  Comments?

> One objection to that name is that it also works during archive
> recovery, like during PITR, which is not a standby server.  But that's
> probably a rare use case.

Huh, that is an interesting point.  I think it might eventually be a
common use case: when you're trying to determine where to stop a PITR
recovery, it would be really nice to be able to roll forward to some
point, pause the recovery, and then snoop around in the database in
a read-only fashion before deciding whether to advance further.  We
don't currently have a good mechanism for the pause-and-resume bit
but I bet something like walreceiver could be built to do that.
The "snoop around" part is already handled nicely by HS.

> +1 on changing it to something.

Any thoughts on what?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2010-04-29 17:55:35
Subject: Re: s/recovery_connections/allow_standby_queries/, or something like that?
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-04-29 17:43:39
Subject: Re: s/recovery_connections/allow_standby_queries/, or something like that?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group