Re: recovery.conf location

From: Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, DimitriFontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: recovery.conf location
Date: 2010-10-01 22:52:50
Message-ID: AANLkTimXFXHHct+a9pYoMOaA+XsGtwc_asB5kW3PdNCX@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Our current arrangement of having a postgresql.conf file, a
> recovery.conf file, and potentially a trigger file (during final
> recovery) seems horribly hackish and impossible to manage neatly.
>

all the contrary, IMHO what we have now seems *almost* fine... what we
need to do is to have another standby side config file called maybe:
standby.conf, otherwise we will end up with another huge configuration
file ala postgresql.conf

so we remove from recovery.conf what doesn't belong there... maybe is
a good idea to put recovery_command on postgresql.conf (or in both
files, recovery.conf and standby.conf, because they are no supposed to
co-exist)

if we have an standby server we use standby.conf, if we are
recoverying a backup we use recovery.conf; and we can specify
parameters in each situation (probably standby_mode should go away too
because the only existence of a standby.conf file imply we are a
standby but that is debatable)

--
Jaime Casanova         www.2ndQuadrant.com
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Kupershmidt 2010-10-02 00:36:36 Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Previous Message Greg Stark 2010-10-01 21:53:11 Re: git diff --patience