Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2

On 2020/04/22 6:53, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 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.

Correct, repmgr uses "pg_ctl promote" or pg_promote() (if available), and
won't be affected by this change.

Regards

Ian Barwick

--
Ian Barwick https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services