Re: patch proposal

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
> wrote:
> > I could see supporting an additional "pause" option that means "pause at
> > the end of WAL if you don't reach the recovery target point". I'd also
> > be happy with a warning being emitted in the log if the recovery target
> > point isn't reached before reaching the end of WAL, but I don't think it
> > makes sense to change the existing behavior.
>
> Indeed, let's not change the existing behavior. A warning showing up
> by default would be useful in itself, even if there are people that I
> think set up overly high recovery targets to be sure to replay WAL as
> much as possible. As recovery_target_action has meaning when a
> recovery target has been reached, I would guess that we would want a
> new option that has the same mapping value as recovery_target_action,
> except that it activates when the target recovery is *not* reached.
> Hence it would be possible to shutdown, pause or promote at will when
> recovery completes, and be able to take a separate action is the
> recovery target is indeed reached. The default of this parameter would
> be "promote", which is what happens now.
>

Agreed. I understand the complexities with backward compatibility on
changing the existing behaviour.
Even, I was more inclined towards introducing a new parameter and as
suggested, will consider the options pause, shutdown or promote for new
parameter.
Thanks for the inputs and advises.

Regards,
Venkata B N

Fujitsu Australia