Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

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

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group