Re: [PATCH] remove pg_standby

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove pg_standby
Date: 2021-01-27 05:06:35
Message-ID: YBD02x3LL/lge59J@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 04:13:24PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I would like to commit this, because "waiting restore commands" have
> confusing interactions with my proposed prefetching-during-recovery
> patch[1]. Here's a version that fixes an error when building the docs
> (there was a stray remaining <xref linkend="pgstandby"/>), and adds a
> commit message. Any objections?

It looks like you are missing two references in your patch set:
$ git grep pg_standby
doc/src/sgml/high-availability.sgml: Do not use pg_standby or
similar tools with the built-in standby mode
src/backend/access/transam/xlog.c: * segment. Only recycle normal
files, pg_standby for example can create

The logic assumed in RemoveXlogFile() is actually a bit scary. I have
not checked in details but it could be possible to clean up more code
in this area?

> Furthermore, I think we should also remove the section of the manual
> that describes how to write your own "waiting restore command".
> Thoughts?

Agreed. No objections to that.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2021-01-27 05:08:14 Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2021-01-27 04:34:22 Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)