recovery consistent != hot standby

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: recovery consistent != hot standby
Date: 2010-05-14 18:18:42
Message-ID: AANLkTikipmueIT0OUrmDsqzeWMDuAwuq5nOsjoYJH-ho@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

While looking through postmaster.c and xlog.c I discovered that we're
being a little bit loose about our use of terminology. Maybe this was
right when committed (I think, at that point, Hot Standby was always
on) but it's not right any more. It appears that we only enter the
PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT when Hot Standby is enabled; otherwise, we
remain in PM_RECOVERY even after reaching consistency. I think, then,
that the state, and the signal which triggers it are misnamed. For
the avoidance of confusion, I'd like to propose that we rename as
follows:

PM_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PM_HOT_STANDBY
PMSIGNAL_RECOVERY_CONSISTENT -> PMSIGNAL_BEGIN_HOT_STANDBY

Objections? Better ideas?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-05-14 18:19:30 fillfactor gets set to zero for toast tables
Previous Message Mike Rylander 2010-05-14 17:47:08 Re: JSON manipulation functions