| From: | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |
| Date: | 2020-04-21 21:19:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20200421231933.444efe7f@firost |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020 15:36:22 +0900
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 03:29:54PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > Yeah, but that's not documented. So I don't think that we need to keep
> > the backward-compatibility for that.
> >
> > 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.
Regards,
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-04-21 21:53:54 | Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-04-21 21:10:25 | Re: [IBM z Systems] Getting server crash when jit_above_cost =0 |