Re: Improve handling of parameter differences in physical replication

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improve handling of parameter differences in physical replication
Date: 2020-03-09 09:45:54
Message-ID: ecd7ad33-c4dd-7587-ec0e-87729852bc3e@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-03-09 09:11, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I think after recovery is paused users will be better to restart the
> server rather than resume the recovery. I agree with this idea but I'm
> slightly concerned that users might not realize that recovery is
> paused until they look at that line in server log or at
> pg_stat_replication because the standby server is still functional. So
> I think we can periodically send WARNING to inform user that we're
> still waiting for parameter change and restart.

I think that would be annoying, unless you create a system for
configuring those periodic warnings.

I imagine in a case like having set max_prepared_transactions but never
actually using prepared transactions, people will just ignore the
warning until they have their next restart, so it could be months of
periodic warnings.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2020-03-09 10:02:26 Re: Crash by targetted recovery
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2020-03-09 09:44:41 Re: Identifying user-created objects