Re: Fast promotion, loose ends

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fast promotion, loose ends
Date: 2013-04-24 09:24:04
Message-ID: CA+U5nMJFwtJPSxT_UTA6F5ZX+Tr-6WsiKO5AzUKw9hqVr7oGig@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 24 April 2013 09:53, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> On 24.04.2013 11:46, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On 24 April 2013 09:32, Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> pg_ctl already checks versions, so I don't see the point.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is, if you do "pgsql93/bin/pg_ctl -D $92DATADIR promote", it
>>> will
>>> create fast_promote file and return success. But it won't actually
>>> promote
>>> the server. I think that's bad.
>>>
>>> If pg_ctl already has a check against that, fine, but I don't think it
>>> does.
>>> Please make sure you test that before applying.
>>
>>
>> If it doesn't check, that is not the only thing that would be broken.
>> The original commit of pg_ctl promote would also be broken.
>
>
> Yeah, it would've been good if the "pg_ctl promote" patch would've added a
> version check. Nevertheless, don't you think it would be good to avoid
> changing the filename of the "promote" file, so that we don't have any more
> such breakage? I don't see any advantage in changing it.

Apart from all the reasons I already gave, no.

The filename isn't changing. We are adding a new capability and
changing the default.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro HORIGUCHI 2013-04-24 10:16:12 Re: Failing start-up archive recovery at Standby mode in PG9.2.4
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-04-24 08:59:47 Re: Failing start-up archive recovery at Standby mode in PG9.2.4