Re: Hot Standby remaining issues

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot Standby remaining issues
Date: 2009-12-01 18:26:50
Message-ID: 4B155FEA.8080500@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs wrote:
> commit 02c3eadb766201db084b668daa271db4a900adc9
> Author: Simon Riggs <sriggs(at)ebony(dot)(none)>
> Date: Sat Nov 28 06:23:33 2009 +0000
>
> Added wal_standby_info GUC to turn RM_STANDBY_ID messages on/off.
> Various comments added also.
>

This patch makes it unsafe to start hot standby mode from a shutdown
checkpoint, because we don't know if wal_standby_info was enabled in the
master.

I still don't think we need the GUC. But for future-proofing, perhaps we
should add a flag to shutdown checkpoint records, indicating whether
it's safe to start hot standby from it. That way, if we decide to add a
GUC like that at a later stage, we don't need to change the on-disk format.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2009-12-01 18:27:01 Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-12-01 18:25:22 Re: Application name patch - v4