| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Elvis Pranskevichus <elprans(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH v1] Add and report the new "in_hot_standby" GUC pseudo-variable. |
| Date: | 2017-03-22 20:00:14 |
| Message-ID: | 84dac867-d911-8f28-776b-a868dde86ee2@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/22/17 14:09, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The opposite means primary. I can flip the GUC name to "is_primary", if
>> that's clearer.
> Hmm, I don't find that clearer. "hot standby" has a very specific
> meaning; "primary" isn't vague, but I would say it's less specific.
The problem I have is that there is already a GUC named "hot_standby",
which determines whether an instance is in hot (as opposed to warm?)
mode if it is a standby. This is proposing to add a setting named
"in_hot_standby" which says nothing about the hotness, but something
about the standbyness. Note that these are all in the same namespace.
I think we could use "in_recovery", which would be consistent with
existing naming.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-03-22 20:09:00 | Re: increasing the default WAL segment size |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-22 19:47:26 | Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables |