Re: Feature Request: pg_replication_master()

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Robert Treat <rob(at)xzilla(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Feature Request: pg_replication_master()
Date: 2013-01-03 18:35:22
Message-ID: 50E5CF6A.2060403@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert,

> In my view, the biggest problem with recovery.conf is that the
> parameters in there are not GUCs, which means that all of the
> infrastructure that we've built for managing GUCs does not work with
> them. As an example, when we converted recovery.conf to use the same
> lexer that the GUC machinery uses, it allowed recovery.conf values to
> be specified unquoted in the same circumstances where that was already
> possible for postgresql.conf. But, you still can't use SHOW or
> pg_settings with recovery.conf parameters, and I think pg_ctl reload
> doesn't work either. If we make these parameters into GUCs, then
> they'll work the same way everything else works. Even if (as seems
> likely) we end up still needing a trigger file (or a special pg_ctl
> mode) to initiate recovery, I think that's probably a win.

I agree that it would be an improvement, and I would be happy just to
see the parameters become GUCs.

I'm just saying that I'll still be pushing to get rid of the requirement
for recovery.conf in 9.4, that's all.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2013-01-03 18:36:15 Re: pg_upgrade test script creates port conflicts in parallel testing
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2013-01-03 18:01:41 pgsql: Tolerate timeline switches while "pg_basebackup -X fetch" is run