| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ian Barwick <ian(dot)barwick(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |
| Date: | 2020-04-21 21:53:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20200421215354.GA26360@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Apr-21, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:36:22 +0900
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> > > Also in that case, non-fast promotion is triggered. Since my patch
> > > tries to remove non-fast promotion, it's intentional to prevent them
> > > from doing that. But you think that we should not drop that because
> > > there are still some users for that?
> >
> > It would be good to ask around to folks maintaining HA solutions about
> > that change at least, as there could be a point in still letting
> > promotion to happen in this case, but switch silently to the fast
> > path.
>
> FWIW, PAF relies on pg_ctl promote. No need for non-fast promotion.
AFAICT repmgr uses 'pg_ctl promote', and has since version 3.0 (released
in mid 2015). It was only 3.3.2 (mid 2017) that supported Postgres 10,
so it seems fairly safe to assume that the removal won't be a problem.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-04-21 21:57:26 | Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |
| Previous Message | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais | 2020-04-21 21:19:33 | Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |