From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |
Date: | 2020-04-21 06:29:54 |
Message-ID: | 9281e6cf-7387-76ce-cae2-e82ba6501fed@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/04/21 14:54, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 02:27:20PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On 2020/04/21 10:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> With your patch, this code
>>> now means that in order to finish recovery you need to send SIGUSR2 to
>>> the startup process *and* to create the promote signal file.
>>
>> Yes, but isn't this the same as the way to trigger fast promotion in HEAD?
>
> Yep, but my point is that some users who have been relying only on
> SIGUSR2 sent to the startup process for a promotion may be surprised
> to see that doing the same operation does not trigger a promotion
> anymore.
Yeah, but that's not documented. So I don't think that we need to keep
the backward-compatibility for that.
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?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-04-21 06:36:22 | Re: Remove non-fast promotion Re: Should we remove a fallback promotion? take 2 |
Previous Message | 曾文旌 | 2020-04-21 06:19:24 | Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables |