| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: recovery_target_time and standby_mode |
| Date: | 2014-11-07 20:07:36 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob9g98pgO==4eg6Q6RDCXhgr+ck2rHH8ST-DwW7+Avijg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> Is the current interaction of recovery_target_time and standby_mode
> (that is, that recovery_target_time causes standby_mode to be ignorned)
> the correct behavior?
I think this summary of the behavior is probably not correct in
detail. For example, if the recovery target isn't reached by the time
the standby reaches the end of archived WAL, I think standby_mode will
affect what happens next.
I do think that the documentation of standby_mode ought to mention
that recovery_target_whatever can cause the server to promote even
when standby_mode is on.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-11-07 20:15:48 | Re: row_to_json bug with index only scans: empty keys! |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-11-07 20:02:36 | Re: recovery_target_time and standby_mode |