Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2012-12-05 13:34:05 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> @@ -5883,6 +5889,17 @@ StartupXLOG(void)
>> } while (record != NULL && recoveryContinue);
>>
>> /*
>> + * We've reached stop point, but not yet applied last
>> + * record. Pause AFTER final apply, if requested, but
>> + * only if users can connect to send a resume message
>> + */
>> + if (reachedStopPoint && recoveryPauseAtTarget &&
>> recoveryApply)
>> + {
>> + SetRecoveryPause(true);
>> + recoveryPausesHere();
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
> I find the above comment a bit misleading because by now we have in fact
> applied the last record...
I'd go further than that: a pause after we've exited the loop is
completely stupid. The only reason for pausing is to let the user
choose whether to continue applying WAL or not. If you've already
made that choice, you might as well let the system come up fully.
But I can't make any sense of the rest of this patch, because it seems
to be randomly rearranging a whole lot of stuff that's unrelated to
pausing. If you think all these changes are in fact necessary, could
you break it down a little more?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
